HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Some strange ideas on air assault
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:05:02 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group


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

In article <1992Apr8.233855.22863@cbnews.cb.att.com> EGYED@LNS62.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Zoltan Egyed (607)-255-4882) writes:
>What if a full-sized carrier sneaked close to the target (assume 3rd world),
>loaded to the brim with paratroopers (the ONLY kind of soldier :-)  ),

Two things fall out of the sky, one's the product of a bird's digestive
system, and the other smells just as bad.

<IT'S A JOKE SON>

>and with some mid-size planes (maybe with rocket assist for takeoff),
>-> the turnaround time of the planes can be much shorter, enabling to
>put down more men during the beginning hours. Maybe: having some
>C-130 Hercules (there are records that it took off with full load
>in 600 feet, without catapult or rocket assist), and have some
>M1A1 Abrams on the carrier. Airborne commanders would love to have them
>fast after landing.
>Any comments?

Picture a *carrier* task force sneaking up on anything! That worked in
1941, but today the movements of carriers close to the shore of a hostile
power are front page news. C-130s *have* taken off from carriers, and
without assist, but *landing* them back again is real tricky. There's
only a couple of feet clearance with the island. You have to leave them
on deck, their wings don't fold, so you've lost most of your CAP and
strike capabilities while they're on board. I don't think a MiA1
will fit in a C-130, though I could be wrong. Isn't that why airborne
uses those itty bitty toy tanks?

It seems to me that for a *surprise* attack, you'd want to use *long*
range aircraft coordinated to be over the jump zone in waves. Then if
the carrier happens to be nearby, it's strike aircraft can furnish
continuing close air support to the guys on the ground. Carriers are
much better strike weapons than they are troop carriers. That's what
helicopter assualt ships are for.

Real questions:

MAC is getting the C17 and has the C5 already for tank transport.
Which aircraft currently in inventory are being used as jump planes
for airborne? How many, and what's their range?

Gary
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: EACZ02XE%GRTHEUN1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: self sealing tanks.how do they work?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:28:55 GMT


From EACZ02XE%GRTHEUN1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu

 i've been hearing of self-sealing tanks on WWII aircraft for a long time
now.
 could someone tell me how they work? (i know that they are double walled
with foam in between, but the way the foam works is still unkwown to me)
 thank you...
kostas papakotas


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)
Subject: Re: Launching torpedoes at depth
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:40:30 GMT


From yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)

In article <1992Apr8.010201.16540@cbnews.cb.att.com>, tek@pram.CS.UCLA.EDU (Ted Kim (Random Dude)) writes:

> Swimout (having the torpedo leave under its own power) apparently
> requires a tube larger than the torpedo.

Could somebody explain a little more about the swimout?

Thanks

SF
bvc

-- 
******************************************************************************
* #$!#$^%!^&%#%$^@#^#!$%%$#%$!^$&@*^#(&$()%&*%%&$^$#@$@#$#@^&$&^$&$^^%$#$%%# *
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*                yuqian.bvc.edu		    the Suicidal Freshman            *
******************************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: orac@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Giovacchini)
Subject: Making an unsolicited presentation to military manufacturer...
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:17:34 GMT


From orac@chinet.chi.il.us (Paul Giovacchini)


	I have a few ideas for cheap but high powered weapons systems.
 I would like to present my ideas to a company.  The information I
 am looking for is who/where/when type things.  Also, should I get
 the ideas patented before hand?

 	I want to run it up the flag pole and see who invests... :-)

 ================================== 
         Paul J. Giovacchini        | My file system is in such bad shape...
      ( orac@chinet.chi.il.us )     | When fsdb saw it, it dumped core twice! 
 ==================================

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au
Subject: Re: Basement Cruise Missiles?
Organization: Curtin University of Technology
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 00:52:49 GMT


From zrepachol@cc.curtin.edu.au

> the US mainland would want maximum destruction. There's no way that a
> third world nation could launch a big enough conventional attack on the 
> continental US to have any strategic effect.
> 
I beg to differ, take one super-tanker loaded with LNG enroute to say Cannada.
Turn hard left at Long Island, unload FAST ( blow the tanks ). Anyone got a
light? 250000 tons of LNG should solve even Manhatten's slum problem...

~Paul


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: kelly@netcom.com (Kelly Goen)
Subject: Re: Basement Cruise Missiles? (OVERLOOKING THE OBVIOUS??)
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:51:04 GMT


From kelly@netcom.com (Kelly Goen)




This discussion of basement cruise missles is very interesting...
has anyone thought to consider that ANY aircraft with an automated flight
deck, could with equipage of a suitable charge and triggering mechanism
(Possibly a notebook computer attached to the rs-232 interfaced GPS module
in the flight deck could make the fire decision..or possibly if
time and research is given to interfaces in commercial flight decks(software
and hardware). This approach has the advantage of being launchable from any p
point in the globe where an aircraft can be subverted and its flight
deck software altered/modified to accomplish this aim... LARGE
ammounts of payload could also be delivered... another advantage is
that delivery systems are available as war prizes to the side considering this
approach... the disadvantage is that it is slow(600 miles per hour)
and vunerable(EASY to spot)... but if it is a surprise attack with
the
flight plan filed as if it were a regular commerical flight or charter
and then diverged at the very last minute and or executed a terrain following
program via using the radar altimeter to drop below air defense radar
coverage... the whole idea begins to look as feasible as an rpv in the same
but lesser force delivery role...
       cheers
       kelly
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: self sealing tanks.how do they work?
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:12:00 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH


From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)

In article <1992Apr14.002855.21835@cbnews.cb.att.com>
EACZ02XE%GRTHEUN1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu writes:

> i've been hearing of self-sealing tanks on WWII aircraft for a long time
> now.
>  could someone tell me how they work?

The ones I've read about in an old issue of Naval Proceedings were
actually bladders.  The article was about how the self-sealing wing
tanks were developed and tested for the F6F Hellcat.  A test was set up
in which the ultimate destructive force was a 50 caliber machine gun
because of the supersonic speed of the bullet.  Note: the Navy knew
that the Japanese didn't have an aircraft weapon with the velocity of
the 50 cal, but they figured if they could develop something that
withstood hits from it then it would stand hits from any bullet.  The
test was to fire one round through the tank and see what happened. 
Plain metal or aluminum tanks were ruled out right away because the
speed of the bullet passing through the tank (which was full) blew them
apart.  The bullet traveling beyond the speed of sound carried a shock
wave that created catastrophic pressures inside the tank.  Since gas is
a fluid and fluids are incompressible, the shock wave of the bullet
transferred it's energy to the gas which simply transferred it to the
fuel cell walls, which ripped open.

So bladders were used.  This prevented the complete destruction of the
tank when a bullet passed through it although other problems were
created like how to suspend the tank in the wing and prevent its
deforming under combat G forces.  The bladder construction was a
sandwich of fabric on the inside and outside with uncured rubber in the
middle.  When the bullet passed through the tank, the two holes allowed
some gas to escape which wetted the uncured rubber.  The rubber in turn
reacted to the presence of the gas and swelled like crazy sealing the
holes.  This worked only up to a point, of course, holes from cannon
fire were not sealable.

The article also mentioned how combat reports indicated that the Zero's
were particularly vulnerable to this type of problem as many pilots
told of watching tracers enter the wing root area of their target and
then watched the wing blow off as if an explosion had occured.  It
hadn't really, the gas tank had taken a 50 caliber hit or two
compressing the fuel, which expanded the tank, which bent the spar/wing
and with the G forces already applied from the turn, the wing couldn't
stay attached and came off.

Hellcats were noted for their ability to take a hosing of gunfire and
come home again.

Corky Scott
From: strickj@jacobs.cs.orst.edu (Jesse Stricker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Thor crowbars energy (was re: Offensive applications of SDI)
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:23:03 GMT
Organization: CS Dept. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.


From strickj@jacobs.cs.orst.edu (Jesse Stricker)

You want to do WHAT?  I hope this is just another "I can make a bigger bang 
than you can"  comment.  If it was, please  disregard the rest.

Throwing asteroids into the earth is a rather bad idea.  Assuming  you can get 
one  and you really want to kill everyone for hundres of miles around,  think
of the side effects.  Millions of tons of particulate in the air, causing a 
winter  that will make nuclear winter  look like the Bahamas.  The shock wave
alone could cause seismic damge that would  have serious effects.  Cute, yo
tag  say Iran and watch the San Andreas Fault slide  into the sea.  That'll
alienate a  few voters...

Asteroid(s) killed  the dinosaurs.  I'd  rather not repeat that


		Seriously, though, Jesse  Stricker
		strickj@atlantis.cs.orst.edu
		strickj@jacobs.cs.orst.edu
		For some reason I cant get rid of the old sig file you see
From: PAISLEY@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: raised section on 637-class sub
Date: 13 Apr 92 04:00:39 GMT
Organization: The American University - University Computing Center


From <PAISLEY@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU>

In article <1992Apr11.002241.19382@cbnews.cb.att.com>, ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Allan Bourdius) says:
>
>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.
Well, anything is possible, but since dry-deck shelters and SDV fittings are
usually external, there is no real need to make one inside the hull, especially
one this big.  The picture is deceiving, that fairing is actaully a lost bigger
than it appears.
Besides, why would it be necessary to put it *inside* the boat?

Gordon
1170 to be. 26 & a wakeup!
Standard disclaimers apply.
From: Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com (Steven.Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: US SMG (Was Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...)
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:41:27 GMT
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.


From Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>

We use the M249 and M60 as SMGs, and neither are 9mm. I have specs if
yo want them.

-- 
Steven.Schultz@mixcom.com
Leader, Military and Arms topic, Hobbies Conference, Exec-PC BBS (414)789-4210

"Eternal peace lasts only until the next war."-Old Russian Proverb
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)
Subject: Re: Some strange ideas on air assault
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:09:10 GMT


From yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)

In article <1992Apr14.003438.23336@cbnews.cb.att.com>, jmurphy@fox.princeton.edu (Jerald Murphy) writes:

> You are correct, the M1A1 tank doesn't fit on a C130. In fact, a C-5 is the only plane that can lift an M1. The only practical way to deploy them is by sea.

You can't use a C-17?  How about borrow a dozen An-124/225, or maybe even a
Il-76, An-12(?).  I bet the cargo 747 can carry them, DC-10 maybe a little to
narrow, but I think it got the lift.  Airbus 340 in the future?  

SF
bvc
-- 
******************************************************************************
* #$!#$^%!^&%#%$^@#^#!$%%$#%$!^$&@*^#(&$()%&*%%&$^$#@$@#$#@^&$&^$&$^^%$#$%%# *
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*                yuqian.bvc.edu		    the Suicidal Freshman            *
******************************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Poor man's cruise missile?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 03:22:19 GMT


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


> Can one use a Remotely Piloted Vehicle, loaded with a warhead, in a
> similar role as a cruise missile?

Many RPV designs have a potential attack role. The problem is that
RPvs are optimised for low-detectability, which means small & light.
The sort of warhead carried could be used against soft point targets,
like signals or radar trucks, but wouldn't have any real effect on a
large bunker or HAS (Hardened Aircraft Shelter).

If you look at big jet RPVs, like the Ryan Firebee, the difference
between this & a "cruise missile" is just one of terminology (and the
US being the US, an argument between the various arms of service 8-) )

          Andy Dingley    dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk
From: jmurphy@fox.princeton.edu (Jerald Murphy)
Subject: Re: Some strange ideas on air assault
Organization: Princeton University
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:34:38 GMT


From jmurphy@fox.princeton.edu (Jerald Murphy)

You are correct, the M1A1 tank doesn't fit on a C130. In fact, a C-5 is the only plane that can lift an M1. The only practical way to deploy them is by sea.
From: woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk (Ian Woodrow)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Mriya
Keywords: Mriya, big plane, Su-29
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:21:38 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Service


From woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk (Ian Woodrow)

In <1992Apr10.014438.10713@cbnews.cb.att.com> janm@London.docs.uu.se (Jan Mattsson) writes:


>From janm@London.docs.uu.se (Jan Mattsson)

>dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie) writes:

>	[stuff deleted]
>>which there was a thread here some months back. They also intend to
>>bring at least one Su-29 (the one that does the "cobra" maneuver) and,

>You mean the Su-27.


No - he means the MiG29






-- 
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: r_anderson@nova.enet.dec.com (Rick Anderson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Present locations of surviving German WWII U-Boats?
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:38:00 GMT
Organization: DEC


From r_anderson@nova.enet.dec.com (Rick Anderson)


The U-995 (Type IXC if I recall) is in Keil, Germany.
The U-2540 (Type XXI) is in Bremerhaven, Germany.
The U-505 is in Chicago.

I've heard rumors of a U-boot in Australia somewhere,
but I can't confirm that one.
Rick
--
**********************************************************
* Rick Anderson          * Digital Equipment Corporation *
* "My timing is Digital" * Database Systems Division     *
**********************************************************
From: draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: pistols vs. airliners
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:07:51 GMT
Organization: Illinois Institute of Technology


From draughn@iitmax.iit.edu (Mark Draughn)

In article <1992Apr13.033948.5240@cbnews.cb.att.com> henry@zoo.toronto.edu
(Henry Spencer) writes:
[...]
>However, the whole debate misses a fundamental point:  having a bullet
>go through the skin of an airliner is not that big a deal.  Airliners
>leak like sieves as it is; they stay pressurized only by pumping air in
>faster than it leaks out.  And considerable damage tolerance is part
>of their design.  The notion that one bullethole will have dire results
>is a *myth*, the result of people taking one of the early James Bond
>movies (really!) as a reliable source of technical information.

Well, the notion that one bullethole could cause *a pressure loss*
with dire results is a myth for several reasons, not the least of
which is that a pressure loss is not an incredibly bad thing: tank-fed
oxygen can keep the pilots and passengers healthy until the plane
reaches a safe altitude.

Also, the pressurization system can easily compensate for a few small
bulletholes.  I beleive that even a blown-out window will not
depressurize some of the larger planes, although the wind would be
impressive.  Even if the airframe is pressurized to sea-level, the
maximum pressure difference is limited to 15psi.  You could probably
plug a bullethole with your hand and suffer only relatively minor
damage.

However, shooting high-penetration bullets around inside a plane is
still a bad idea.  The big fear is that they could hit a fuel line or
one of the Parts Of The-Plane-That-Keeps-It-From-Smashing-Into-The-
Ground.
-- 

Mark Draughn    | <draughn@iitmax.iit.edu> or <SYSMARK@IITVAX> on BITNET
----------------+ Academic Computing Center, Illinois Institute of Technology
+1 312 567 5962 | 10 W. 31st Street, Chicago, Illinois  60616
From: craig.patten@f824.n680.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Craig Patten)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Low Altitude Training
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:49:32 GMT
Organization: Fidonet. Gate admin is fido@socs.uts.edu.au


From craig.patten@f824.n680.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Craig Patten)


hh> from flying at 200 feet that it takes considerable training
hh> for pilots to fly effectively at the lower altitude, yet only two air
hh> forces in the world train for it [the USAF not among them].

Which air forces are these?

Craig.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Patten - CoSysop of FlightLine BBS - South Australia, Australia.
             - FidoNet   3:680/824
             - InterNet  craig.patten@f824.n680.z3.fido.zeta.org.au
---------------------------------------------------------------------------  
 
---
 * Origin: FlightLine BBS, Aviation and Computer Pilots BBS:  (3:680/824)
From: eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Minuteman Launch Center Surviablity
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:02:04 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From eugene@nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)

Recently, I attended a conference where silos and centers were simulated
(and you can assume tested) by finite element methods.  This was the
unclassified portion of the meeting which I could attend, since I
have no clearance.  I can assure just from that part of the meeting
that the more detailed questions are classified.  Not highly classified,
but certainly on a need to know basis.  Just to attend the non-classified
portions of the meeting I had to sign statements of truth and citizenship.
Specific survivability questions exist, but I do not believe that I
can get into those.  In fact, I wonder if I would get in trouble for just
telling you the method used.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (   James A Seymour   )
Subject: Rutan: PondRacer and MudFighter
Organization: Kansas State University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:42:31 GMT


From camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (   James A Seymour   )

I just got my MAY92 copy of Popular Science.  They have an 
article on the Pond Racer.  This is a twin boom racer built
by Burt Rutan.  Designed speed is 527mph, but the article
hints that tweaking may increase this.  Power is a pair
of 1,000hp engines used in Nissan GTP automotive racers.

As I recall, the reason for building this bird was to 
show airracers that you dont have to butcher WWII airplanes
and engines to achieve world record speeds.  The idea
being that if Rutan can prove the concept of designing
racers from the ground up, then fewer irreplaceable
WWII engines and airframes will be harmed.
(The current pylon record holder is Rare Bear, a Grumman
Bearcat with clipped wings anda 55-liter 4,000hp engine)

This leads to my questions: Just how many WWII engines and
airframes are still out there is restorable condition?
Is this something historical plane buffs should rise up
in arms for?(or at least be concerned about)  
What modifications must be done to a warbird for pylon 
racing?  Can these mods be restored?

On another point......

I have not heard anything recently about Rutan's MUDFIGHTER.
Is there any recent news about this as yet homeless fighter/
ground attack plane?

(The mudfighter is a privately financed plane made by Rutan's
Scaled Composites.  This is a composite single jet engine
ground attack/cheap fighter designed around the engine and 
a chaingun.  If I recall correctly, the plane can turn inside
of the A-10.)

Off on second tangent......

Is rutan doing any authorized work for the military?

thanks,

james seymour/camel/camelsho@matt.ksu.ksu.edu/camlshop@cis.ksu.edu
From: yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: ER Standard
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:25:21 GMT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA


From yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)

Just want to know if there is any US ships under construction have the
capability to carry ER Standard missles.  Once the Leathy and Virginia and all
those old cruisers are gone, there will be no ERs left.  Can they make the Mk41
ER capable?

SF
bvc

-- 
******************************************************************************
* #$!#$^%!^&%#%$^@#^#!$%%$#%$!^$&@*^#(&$()%&*%%&$^$#@$@#$#@^&$&^$&$^^%$#$%%# *
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*                yuqian.bvc.edu		    the Suicidal Freshman            *
******************************************************************************