HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: New Carrier Plan
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:54:52 GMT


From megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)

In article <BvG07M.1z8@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes:
>My point is that whenever the marines need air support, there are
>always available air assets of the air force or naval carriers to
>provide it.  That the marine corps has it's own air force seems a
>needless duplication of function.  In this day and age, every dollar
>wasted is a dollar less spent on the important things.

Randy, I don't want to be patronizing, but look at history a little closer...

The reason the Marines have their own air power is because the Navy and
Air Force AREN'T always available to support them.

And the major consideration is coordination between air and ground/sea assets
which having all those involved from the same branch provides. 

It's is the same reason the Army operates it's helicopters, and is fighting
to operate CAS fixed wing aircraft. When the Air Force was going to retire
the A-10 the Army said they wanted them.

It provides more security and safety for the troops, and LESS command staff.
This way in battle you don't need extra Marine attaches with the AF and vice-
versa to cooradinate attacks. A Marine cammander can be sure of his assets,
and doesn't have to worry about the other service diverting them for a 'better'
target. The Army and Air Force have been fighting forever. The Army claims the
Air Force is caught up in glamor and glitz, only buying fast fighters...

And as much as I like the AF, I agree. They wanted to drop the A-10 for the
A-16 so they could have more F-16s. That is considered to by ridiculous by
most everyone outside AF command. The Army flipped at that idea. Imagine if
the Army had to coordinate with the Air Force for Helicopters. That would be 
utter chaos.

The basic principle is you give each branch what the will need to do their
job with the least outside dependance. The Army has their helicopters and
some aircraft (hopefully more CAS in the future), the Air Force has their
aircraft and ground trops for security, the navy has its aircraft and ships,
and the Marines have their helicopters, aircrafter, and ground forces.
(yes I know helicopters are aircraft, I wanted to distinguish them from fixed
wing types.)

There is some interaction, and that's good. But in service coordination means
less confusion, more action, and less friendly fire.

At least historically.

###############################################################################
# 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#
###############################################################################


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gt7797a@prism.gatech.edu (WORKS,TRAVIS EDWARD)
Subject: Re: Help on IR difference - PASSIVE vs. ACTIVE
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:44:33 GMT


From gt7797a@prism.gatech.edu (WORKS,TRAVIS EDWARD)


In <Bv1IKF.2Dv@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> narlochn@kirk.msoe.edu writes:


>From narlochn@kirk.msoe.edu
>Also, what kinds of 40mm grenade rounds were invented
>that were outside the basic ones: HEDP, HE, etc...? 

HEAT, Air-Burst, White Phosphorous, Smoke, Incendiary, Tear Gas,
Buckshot, Baton, Rocket-Assisted (for use with the M-134),
Flash/Bang Stun, Flare, and of course practice slugs.
Any others?

>                                                  _____
>Who else is still waiting for "Naked Gun Part (Pi) | |  "

>''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/
>'/''/'Nathan'Narloch''/''/''/'"Alumn122@whscdp.whs.edu"/''/''/''/'
>/''/'(Enforcer Burp)'/''/''/''or'/'"NARLOCHN@KIRK.MSOE.EDU"'/''/''
>''/''/Milw, WI 53207/''/'"Join'the'Official'Psycho/Team..."/''/''/
>'/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/'


					-Tag
From: roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Neutral particle beams
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:03:44 GMT
Organization: CERN -- European Organization for Nuclear Research


From roeber@vxcrna.cern.ch

In article <BvAsD1.AAv@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> [...]
> Actually, neutral particle beams are a real (theoretically real, that is)
> weapons system. More exactly, it would be usefull to neutralize a 
> charged particle beam (i.e. to eliminate the beam spreading and
> the effects of the Earth's magnetic fields.) I think the idea is
> to mix a proton and an electron beam, and allow recombination into
> high velocity neutral hydrogen. As far as I know, however, this idea
> is purely theoretical, and the article Mr. D'Arcy was replying to was
> (as he points out) purely fiction. (Russian anti-satellite weapons,
> however, might be a different matter...)

Neutral beams are alive and well; I sometimes get called in to work
on one.  I don't think there are any neutral-beam weapons systems yet, 
but if you recall, one of the recent shuttle missions had an accelerator
on board with which they fired ions around -- to study the "aurora
borealis" or some such.

Firing protons and electrons collinearly and hoping they reassociate
doesn't work at any useful energy.  If you pass low energy protons
(keV range) through a gas it will tend to neutralize by picking up
electrons, but this drops off as you get into the MeV range.

What we use are H- ions: hydrogen with an extra electron.  These are
hard to produce, but once made are as easy to accelerate as any ion.
There are three ways to neutralize H-: passing it through a gas,
passing it through a plasma, and using lasers to photodissociate the
extra electron.  At our energy range (2 MeV) the first two have 
efficiencies of about 50% and 70% (respectively); photodissociation
approaches 100% efficiency.

Last I checked, "Star Wars"-related research was still going on on
this, particularly the H- source.  I've seen some of their (non-
classified) papers on this; personally, I think they've a ways to go.
The tokamak fusion folks are also interested in neutral beams (as a
way of dumping energy into the plasma from outside the "bottle"), but
their design constraints are rather different.

Just to throw some numbers on the table, our H- source (civillian,
of course, but not to shabby) produces tens of milliamps of H-.  Our
two-meter RFQ accelerates these ions to 2 MeV.  1 mA at 1 MeV = 1 kW.

Higher current sources look very difficult.  Higher energy accelerators
are trivial, but get awfully big for launch awfully fast.

-- 
Frederick G. M. Roeber | CERN -- European Center for Nuclear Research
e-mail: roeber@cern.ch or roeber@caltech.edu | work: +41 22 767 31 80
r-mail: CERN/PPE, 1211 Geneva 23, Switzerland | home: +33 50 42 19 44
--  
"Sorry, baby, I can't take you to the pizza joint tonight, I've got to go
back to the lab and split the atom." -- Ayn Rand, "What is Romanticism?"
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: German turbojet a/c
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:24:10 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

All this talk about the ME-262 reminds me of a book a read a long
time ago in which it was stated that Heinkel actually had the first
jet a/c flying before the '262! The story was that the RLM decided
to allow Messerschmit the 'honor' of developing new jet fighter a/c
due to political maneuvering. I recall something about how the Heinkel
would've been ready 6-12 months earlier than the '262! The only details
I recall was that it had 3 20mm cannon in the nose & was alot slower
than the '262 but more maneuverable. Anyone else have any info' on this?

PHIL


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: HDKP000 <HDKP@musicb.mcgill.CA>
Subject: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18
Organization: McGill University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:47:42 GMT


From HDKP000 <HDKP@musicb.mcgill.CA>


The west has the advantage in terms of advanced electronics
such as Look-Down/Shoot-Down Radar, etc. But if one carefully
looks at any photo of the Mig29, just before the pilot's
canopy, there is a smaller canopy that is believed to house
their IR detection system, First-Look/First-Kill. The Russians
are said to be far advanced in this field of weapontry as
compared to their Western counterparts.
Futhermore, the detail work of the of the Mig29 has not reached
the West in terms of finishing their final product, ie rough
edges and welding, etc. But on the whole, their fighters are
built with the mind frame of using rough fields during take-off
and landings whereas Americain fighters require a smoother s
surface.
I am responding from memory, but I know where I can find the
facts and will give you more later and correct any areas
which I made a mistake.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: megazone@coal.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:24:32 GMT


From megazone@coal.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)

In article <BvE5Iq.2Gv@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu (Raymond Man) writes:
>As for how anything can be better than that coming out from the US terabuck 
>industry, one should note that US put into their own SST (B2707) more than
>twice as much as for the British and French to develop the Concorde and US
>did not even produce a single flying prototype.

It should also be noted that the B2707 would have flown circles around the
Concorde. The SST was designed to be a mach 3 aircraft with a higher capacity
than the Concorde. The SST was cancelled since it was felt there wasn't much
of a market, plus the pressures from the environmentalists.

A lot of the tech for the B2707 was useful for other projects.

The American effort may have been a bit too large, reaching a bit to far.
The big difference was the materials needed, the B2707 needed a lot more
exotic materials.

###############################################################################
# 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#
###############################################################################


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:59:53 GMT


From fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)

In article <BvE5J9.2I6@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
>Another thing, the soviets were clearly superior to us in a number of
>metallurgical innovations not the least of which was their titanium hulled
>submarines. We never did develope a matching capability there so I would
>think it's a *least* one example of where the soviets were superior to
>anything the West had.

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

                                                      Frank Crary
                                                      CU Boulder


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy)
Subject: Russian Anti-Satalite Weapon  
Organization: University at Buffalo
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:34:44 GMT


From bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy)

>is purely theoretical, and the article Mr. D'Arcy was replying to was
>(as he points out) purely fiction. (Russian anti-satellite weapons,
>however, might be a different matter...)

Actually, the concept of anti-satellite weapons has been around a while.
Does anyone know if any where ever developed and furthermore ever deployed?
I don't know if the cost would be worth it, but the destruction of some
of the satellites used by Communication and Positioning systems, not to 
mention weather and intelligence gathering, might be quite desirable in a 
large conflict.

SJRD

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:36:27 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <BvFzso.zw@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, megazone@coal.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes:
> 
> From megazone@coal.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
> 
> In article <BvE5J9.2I6@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
>>Another thing, the soviets were clearly superior to us in a number of
>>metallurgical innovations not the least of which was their titanium hulled
>>submarines. We never did develop a matching capability there so I would
>>think it's a *least* one example of where the soviets were superior to
>>anything the West had.
 
> I would have to disagree. The West (US) has the capability to build titanium
> submarines, but the cost is prohibitive. Not the tech, the raw materials.
> The former USSR is lucky to have large reserves of titanium ore, plus they
> weren't opposed to dumping huge quantities of money into a hull.

I didn't mean the capability to develop the ability to build titanium hulls.
I meant the capability to build them now. There are alot of specialized tech-
niques involved from what I've read. I'm sure the US could develop the abil-
ity if the desire was there but the US does NOT currently have that ability.
Thus the Soviets are superior to us in this regard because they CAN build
titanium hulled subs right now while we would have to work on it for awhile
before we could.

> The high yield steel the US uses has been shown to be better than the 
> comparable steel the Soviets used.

Undoubtedly.
 
> The US has developed many high temperature alloys that the Soviets haven't
> matched. Especially in aircraft applications, such a turbines.

I'm sure this is true also. However, I've read a number publications that
stress repeatedly that metallurgy was one of the sciences where the USSR
was most advanced. The statement, "many of their alloys are superior to
ours & even unknown to us" has appeared more than once. This doesn't 
mean ALL their alloys are better than ours but that there were a number
of instances where they had something we didn't or something better than
we did.

PHIL
 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt)
Subject: French Nuclear Tests in the Sahara
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:36:15 GMT


From gunter@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Gunter Ahrendt)

>From rmz@ifi.uio.no (Bj|rn Remseth)

>1) Does anyone have a history of French nuclear testing in the Sahara?

13-02-1960 = 07:04 Test 70kt Reggan Algeria French Tower
01-04-1960 = 06:17 Test 20kt Reggan Algeria French Surface
27-12-1960 = 07:30 Test 20kt Reggan Algeria French Tower
25-04-1961 = 06:00 Test 20kt Reggan Algeria French Tower
07-11-1961 = 11:29 Test <19kt under Ahaggar Mountains Algeria French
01-05-1962 = 10:00 Test >21kt under Ahaggar Mountains Algeria French
18-03-1963 = 10:02 Test <19kt under Ahaggar Mountains Algeria French
30-03-1963 = 09:59 Test <19kt under Ahaggar Mountains Algeria French
20-10-1963 = 13:00 Test >21kt under Ahaggar Mountains Algeria French
14-02-1964 = 11:00 Test <19kt under Ahaggar Mountains Algeria French
15-06-1964 = 13:40 Test <19kt under Ahaggar Mountains Algeria French
28-11-1964 = 10:30 Test <19kt under Ahaggar Mountains Algeria French
27-02-1965 = 11:30 Test >21kt under Ahaggar Mountains Algeria French
30-05-1965 = 11:00 Test <19kt under Ahaggar Mountains Algeria French
01-10-1965 = 10:00 Test <19kt under Ahaggar Mountains Algeria French
01-12-1965 = 10:30 Test <19kt under Ahaggar Mountains Algeria French
16-02-1966 = 11:00 Test <19kt under Ahaggar Mountains Algeria French

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Wednesday, 30 September, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:28:02 GMT


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

Wednesday, 30 September, 1942

Hitler speaks at the Sportspalast in Berlin.  He promises that the German
army will hold its ground and attack where necessary, and states that
Stalingrad will be captured.  Hitler also terms Britain's leaders 
"military idiots."

Captain Jochen Marseille, German's top fighter ace in Africa, is killed
when the engine of his Bf 109 fighter fails.  He had 151 victories to his
credit.

Japanese bombers carry out a minor raid on Adak Island in the Aleutians.

British agents contact resistance elements in Greece.

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

"I said that if Jewry started this war in order to overcome the Aryan
people, then it would not be the Aryans but the Jews who would be
exterminated.  The Jews laughed at my prophecies... I doubt if they are
laughing now." - Adolf Hitler
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Carrick Talmadge <clt@eotvos.physics.purdue.edu>
Subject: Re: Patriot
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:25:07 GMT


From Carrick Talmadge <clt@eotvos.physics.purdue.edu>


In sci.military article <BvCCAt.48G@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Dean Adams:
> However... merely exploding "near" a Scud in it's terminal phase is not 
> particularly effective.  It takes an almost direct hit on the warhead for 
> it to explode in the AIR, and not on the ground the way it was intended.
> The best example shown was war footage of a single inbound Scud being 
> hit by *multiple* Patriots, but with the warhead continuing on unimpeded.
> 

I generally agree with Dean Adams' assessment of the performance of the  
Patriot missile system.  However, I think that a couple of points should be  
made that some people seem be be missing:

The Patriot was never intended to be used as a large area defensive weapon,
so nobody should be particularly surprised if it didn't always succeed
in this role.  The primary objective of the Patriot was in defending
localized targets, for which its performance in the Gulf showed it to be
well qualified for. You don't have to detonate a missile to defend a
localized target, you just need to alter the missile's trajectory...

The Scud missile in the Gulf War had very little tactical military
significance, and was used in the Gulf War for political rather than
military objectives.  As a political device, the Patriot was successful
in its mission of presenting a defense to the Scud missile.  The fact
that it may have had limited tactical effect is as irrelevant as the
tactical threat presented by the Scud missile.  Ignoring the real
strategic effect that the Patriot missile made, and would make in any
future war, would be I think a real error in judgement.

A final point is that if one regards the Scud missile as a "terror" weapon,
then the accuracy of this weapon is not particularly important other than  
that it drop inside a populated area.  If this is the principle role of the  
missile, then it seems to me that you *want* the missile to break up and/or  
tumble on reentry, since this makes the missile much harder to hit in flight.   
I've often wondered if the apparent deterioration in the quality of the Scud  
missiles at the end of the Gulf War might be attributable to a deliberate  
modification of the Scud missile by Iraqi technicians as a countermeasure to  
the Patriot missile...

Carrick Talmadge
clt@physics.purdue.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: WWII -- Why didn't Japan invade Hawaii?
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:54:50 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

Another point to consider was the size of the US garrison on Oahu.
There were 2 regular US Army divisions present plus Marines plus
Navy Shore Defense units. It would've taken a very large Japanese
operation to succeed. Their carriers also couldn't stay on-station 
forever & they wouldn't have been able to transfer shore-based air 
units in for quite some time.

PHIL
 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)
Subject: Re: Kinetic Energy Tank Killers
Summary: A megajoule isn't all that much
Organization: Chinet - Public Access UNIX
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:44:46 GMT


From saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)

In article <Bv3CHv.MI2@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> RSCH2867@cl.uh.edu writes:
>
>From RSCH2867@cl.uh.edu
>
>The concept is very simple.  Take a 75kg missle, propel it at the target at
>1650 meters/second, and it hits the tank with energy on the order of 10**8
>joules (remebering kinetic energy = one-half mass times (velocity squared)).
>I'm sorry I didn't have the chance to convert 100 million joules to something
>really familiar like the heat necessary to roast a car - maybe someone in net
>land can come up with that. The tricky part to the weapon was guidence - which

This is a pretty marginal-sounding amount of energy to direct at a tank.  The
standard 'popular' explanation of a megajoule is that it's the energy released
by burning a jelly donut (look around yourself: I've seen this several different
places).  So let's say 10^8 joule is the energy of a pound or 2 of explosives.

                                             Steve      saj@chinet.chi.il.us

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cup.portal.com!Wingnut%portal@uunet.UU.NET
Subject: Re: US Sea Sparrow hits Turkish Destroyer
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:53:35 GMT


From cup.portal.com!Wingnut%portal@uunet.UU.NET

Regarding the recent accidental launching of a Sea Sparrow missile which
struck the Turkish ship:

I just happened to be visited tonight by a naval officer from an air craft
carrier which also carries Sea Sparrows. As you might guess, the incident was
the topic of much discussion on his ship today. He said the most likely
scenario is that a crewman was using the tv camera which directs the targeting
radar to view the destroyer. The system has no key lock system so once the
radar was trained and activated it could easily been accidentally fired.
Unfortunately the camera and thus the radar was directed at the worst possible
area of the ship. My Encyclopedia of World Sea Power (1988 edited by Chris
Bishop) quotes as having a 40 kilogram (88 pound) HE-fragmentation warhead. It
is 13 feet 1 inch long, weights 503 pounds, travels at Mach 3+ to a range of
13.8 miles and has an altitude limit of 25 to 50,000 feet. My Navy source says
they are always fired in pairs (my guess is since they are a last ditch
defense they don't dare rely on a single missile in case of failure) which is
why the news reports state that 2 missiles were fired although only one hit.

While the missile is designed to shoot down incoming airplanes it seems that
it is certainly possible to use this as an anti-ship weapon. It would be just
the thing to take out a small patrol boat.
 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: sysadm@pro-cajun.cts.com (John Mire, System Administrator)
Subject: Re: some civil war firsts.
Organization: ProLine [pro-cajun], Shreveport, Louisiana (318)865-6579
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:50:05 GMT


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

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

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

Steve ]

----
INET: sysadm@pro-cajun.cts.com                    UUCP: crash!pro-cajun!sysadm


Newsgroups: sci.military