HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu
Subject: Re: Carrier info.wanted !
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:30:56 GMT


From TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu

     Other nations with aircraft carriers include:

     India: 2 (Vikrant/Viraat)
     Argentina: 1 (Vienticinco de Mayo)
     Brazil: 1 (Minas Gerias)
     Italy: 1 (Giuseppe Garibaldi)
     Spain: 1 (Principe de Austurias)

     The Italian and Spanish ships are ski-jump equipped for operating both
 helicopters and Harriers; the Brazillian and Argentinean ships are getting old
 and probably nearing retirement (we saw how effective the Argie ship was in
 the Falklands in '82).  The Indian vessels are also getting old, and reports
 are that a replacement for one of them is under construction.

     Both Japan and Thailand have been tossing around the idea of acquiring
 some form of small carrier/helo assault ship, and it seems that eventually the
 Japanese will get one, but not for several years.

     The former Soviet Republics also have a number of carrier-type vessels in
 various stages of disrepair.

     2 x Moskva Class (Moskva and Lenningrad)--very old, close to retirement--
                operate only KA-25/27 helicopters
     4 x Kiev Class (Kiev, Novorosysk, Minsk, Kharkov(?))--early/mid-1970s
                ships with ski-jumps for Yak-38 "Forgers" and ASW helos; some
                of these are in awful states of repair and need immediate over-
                hauls or scrapping
     1 x Admrial Kuznetsov--full deck carrier, but I believe it has a ski-jump
                as well; operates 40-50 aircraft, Su-27K is main fighter; now
                under Russian control
     1 x Varyag--Still under construction, I think under Ukrainian control;
                reports last year said it was to be sold to China, but all
                parties involved deny it; would need lots of work to get
                functional
     1 x ??--nuclear powered carrier under construction?
     1 x ??--conventional powered carrier under con., like Kuznetsov

                                                T.Z.
                                "Knowledge, was it worth such torment/
                                 To see the far side of shadow?"--G.T.
From: megazone@yoyodyne.wpi.edu (MegaZone)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: af news svc 01/14/93
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:23:22 GMT
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal


From MegaZone <megazone@yoyodyne.wpi.edu>

In article <C1D89z.9H5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> patrick.eves@canrem.com (Patrick Eves) writes:
>the missle's lock.  If the Iraqis (and presumably others) are now getting fast
>enough to beat the HARM, then I suppose it's time to head back to the drawing
>board and develop a faster missle.  Not much of a problem, really.  The HARM
>is 15 year old technology, and it uses components originally developed for the
>Shrike, an even older system.  A more powerful motor and faster lock-on would
>do the trick, as well as adding a "home on last known position" feature, simil

Not necessary. If we were a bit smarter we'd support the ALARM missile from
England. It has a variety of modes and is about the same size as the HARM.
It has home on coordinates mode, locking the position into its guidance
system. One mode is a boost to high altitude and then slow decent with a small
parachute. Firing into a radar if it powers up. Plus the normal home on jam 
and emiter modes. Seems like a good system.

Of course American firms will complain about buying foreign arms. And it would
probably have to be assembled here. Just like we pulled out of the ASRAAM
program to inprove the Sidewinder.

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
From: jacobus@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Seeking access to a particular source.
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:59:41 GMT
Organization: Purdue University


From jacobus@symphony.cc.purdue.edu (Bryan J. Maloney)



Hello, I am seeking access to a particular book, which has proven quite
difficult to get hold of.  I refer to "Das Geschuetz im Mittelalter:
Quellencritischen und uebersuchen".  So far, attempts to access it via
interlibrary loan have been stonewalled.  They only locations they could
find it at are at the Military History Library at West Point and at the
Smithsonian.  Needless to say, they're not loaning, nor are they thrilled
at the idea of photocopying it.  It is available in microfilm, but the
film is difficult to read, and German is not a strong language for me--
so I really need to be able to comfortably refer to my Woerterbuch to be
able to follow the work.


So far as I know, the book has never been translated into English.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dave Rickel <drickel@bounce.mentorg.com>
Subject: Re: triremes
Organization: Mentor Graphics 
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:49:15 GMT


From Dave Rickel <drickel@bounce.mentorg.com>


In article <C19ny0.3Gs@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com> writes:
|> The Roman ships of this period were typically sailed (or rowed) only
|> within sight of land. It was common practice to anchor, or even haul out
|> (though you're not going to beach a trireme) to sleep every night. This
|> was also true of the earlier Greeks.

Let's see.  Scientific American a while back had an article on triremes.
I don't remember the issue, you should be able to find it in an index.  There
is also a book, ENGINEERING IN THE ANCIENT WORLD, by Landels or something
similar, that has a chapter on ships.

>From what i recall, triremes were sailed mainly within sight of land--no
compass, no chronometer.  The mediterranean was only navigable for about eight
months of the year (give or take, depending on how desperate you were).  I'm
not sure about the comment about not beaching triremes--i remember something
about them getting waterlogged if they weren't.  The Landels book guessed that
the merchants could probably sail a point or two into the wind (i think that
was the terminology--so that the angle from the direction your craft is
pointing to the direction the wind comes from is about 70 to 80 degrees).
That's another reason for sailing close to shore--that way the winds should be
somewhat favorable at least twice a day.

There was a comment about Ben Hur not being very factual on it's maritime
portion.  Quite right--galley slaves didn't come into being until later.

The Romans were much less nautical than the Greeks, for what it's worth.

|> Towards the end of this period, the lateen was becoming popular in the
|> middle east, and that's a different story, but the galleys generally
|> stayed close to shore for as long as they stayed in use. Some nations
|> still used them into the 19th century, and they weren't completely
|> outclassed until steam power became commonplace.

Umm.  These galleys were different from the biremes and triremes, and did
use galley slaves.  They tended to be good for sprints and for maneuvering
in the confused winds close to shore (i'm not really contradicting the bit
on winds above), and tended to be used for piracy.


david rickel
drickel@sjc.mentorg.com


Xref: sparky sci.military:12899 soc.history:11005
From: military@cbnews.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Sunday, 31 January, 1943
Date: 26 Jan 93 17:45:46 GMT
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


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

Sunday, 31 January, 1943

Soviet troops reach the headquarters of Field-Marshal Paulus and demand his
surrender.  Paulus assents, but resistance elsewhere in the pocket continues.
Hitler is outraged and vows to appoint no more field-marshals.

American B-24 bombers strike at Messina, Sicily, hitting the ferry terminal
there.  Among the casualties is the Archibishop of Reggio.

Hitler appoints Admiral Karl Doenitz Commander-in-Chief of the German
Navy.

General Ambrosio replaces Marshal Cavallero, who resigns as Italy's
Chief of General Staff.

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

"Paulus did an about-face on the threshold of immortality." - Adolf Hitler
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Amraam usage in Iraq
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:30:24 GMT


From Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>

In article <C19oF0.4Ct@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> system@doc.bmd.trw.com writes:

>     But on Monday, an F-15C failed to shoot down an Iraqi MiG-25 Foxbat
>after attempting to do so with both an AMRAAM and an AIM-7 Sparrow. The F-15
>fired an AMRAAM at the MiG at a range of 27 miles and then a Sparrow at 17
>miles, suggesting the engagement was a "head-to-head" shot.

Is it common practice for the F-15's to carry both the AMRAAM and the Sparrow. 
The AMRAAM is a much superior weapon, and you would think that in a possible 
(probable) shooting situation, they'd carrry the it over the Sparrow.  

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
From: tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Ted Kim (Random Dude))
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: SH-60 ASMs (was Re: Harpoon and tactics)
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:00:43 GMT
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department


From "Ted Kim (Random Dude" <tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu>

In article <C1H2zp.F98@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu> writes:
>I cant think of any good reason a Seahawk couldnt carry a Harpoon
>instead of its Mk46 torpedo.

I think possibly I saw one picture with of a Seahawk flight test with
a Harpoon strapped on, but that is as far as it ever went. Currently,
there are no plans to carry Harpoon on the SH-60. The USN is instead
equipping a total of 166 SH-60Bs to carry the AGM-119B Penguin. In the
Navy's opnion, however, the Penguin is too expensive and only 106 will
be bought. In the meantime, the Navy is looking for something cheaper.

-ted

-- 
Ted Kim                           Internet: tek@ficus.cs.ucla.edu
UCLA Computer Science Department  UUCP:     ...!{uunet|ucbvax}!cs.ucla.edu!tek
3680A Boelter Hall                Phone:    (310) 825-8524
Los Angeles, CA 90024             FAX:      (310) 825-2273
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>
Subject: Re: Tomahawk cost
Organization: University at Buffalo
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:52:39 GMT


From "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>

In article <C17vrM.Exy@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes...
> It has been reported that the Iraqi's fired something like 100 Exocets
> and numerous Silkworms, yet none are known to have hit any ships.  If
> the CIWS didn't stop them, what did?

Where did the number 100 come from???  Better yet, what was the Silkworm 
number??

As far as what stopped them, range was a major factor.  Also, lack of 
targeting information.  And don't forget old style intercepting.  

> Wasn't a British frigate or such credited with downing several missiles
> with its CIWS while operating near that big island near Kuwait city?
> Wasn't the Missouri also involved?

Strange as it seems, it seems that is was British helocopters that 
intercepted the only publicized close missle attack (this may be 
inaccurate, but I think its correct).  Also,  I doubt anything ever got
close enough for a CIWS to be needed.  I am under the impression that 
devices such as Sea-sparrows and the like are not considered CIWS, let 
alone some of the RIMs fired from Ticonderogas and the like.

> The only way you could have "multiple missiles incoming from unknown
> directions", is to be on the open ocean at war with some other major
> sea power or somekind of surprise attack while in a inland sea or such. 

I guess air power has been overlooked completely in this statement.  I 
could see 20 land based F/A-18s launching simultaneously from 20 different 
directions right off the coast.

> Besides, each CIWS station is responsible for only a small quadrant
> of the ship's perimeter and acts independently and automatically (in
> the case of Phalanx at least).  None of them cover a 360 deg circle by 
> itself.

No, but they DO NOT act independently.  Much more complex targeting and 
controol system than you seem to indicate.  In your example above, you seem 
to indicate that a ship carries many, many (like more than ten) Phalanx 
systems.  Not the case.  I believe the average is between two and three and
they are responisble for a large area in the CIWS layout.

SJRD

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>
Subject: Re: Is this true?
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:34:52 GMT


From "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>

In article <C15yKx.Kn7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Terence T. Lung" <lungtt@gus26.ecn.purdue.edu> writes:
>
>I think the Prinz Eugen went down too, or maybe later, while in tow
>after the tests.  I read this in the journal Warship which had an
>entire series on the Prinz Eugen from '91 to '92.

The Prinz Eugen indeed survived the Bikini test but was heavily damaged
and sank while in tow for repairs.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | If a company announces that they have perfected
George Patterson -  | a product, it's time to sell your stock in that
                    | company.
                    |                            Kelvin Throop
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: MegaZone <megazone@granite.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Uranium depleted shells
Organization: WPI Discordian Society, Undocumented Cabal
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:44:28 GMT


From MegaZone <megazone@granite.wpi.edu>

In article <C17vrs.F0F@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dehaney4905@mtroyal.ab.ca writes:
>various types of armor. But because of the shells composition, is it 
>actually a fusion-reaction that would enable surprisingly deep penetration 
>into armor?

There are API shells which are DU. You do not get 'fusion' with Uranium in any
case, especially DU. What happens in on contact the KE of the round becomes
heat, melting the armor and the round and forming a high-temperature molten
metal jet that slices through the armor. The temp is high enough that on 
exiting the back of the armor the DUY ignites. DU burns extremely hot, and 
will set off ammo, etc inside the vehicle.


>Theoretically, only 7 of these shells would be required to disable a tank 

Theoretically you only need one in the right place. Blow of a tread, hit the
main gun (I've seen pictures of a tank with a chunk of gun tube missing after
an A-10 attackck, one round is all it take, hit the engine or ammo storage,
there are many ways to disable a tank.

>Would a tank really have armor thin enough that an A-10 Gatling-like gun 
>could be effective?

Hell yes. The A-10 can kill an M-1A1, the A-10 attacks from the weakest side,
the top. Top armor is VERY thin compare to the front slope. Have you ever seen
films of the A-10 Strafing old M-48s and M-60s? The tanks a shoved about 
by just a few rounds. Quite impressive. 

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################
From: chadwemy@bigwpi.wpi.edu (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Air launched tomahawk?
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:56:14 GMT
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute


From Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@bigwpi.wpi.edu>

In article <C17vM6.ErK@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:
>
>   There's an ad by McDonnell Douglas on the back of the March 1992
>UNSI Proceedings for a missile called SLAM (Standoff Land Attack
>Missile).  It says that it "is produced on the same production line
>and supported by the existing Harpoon logistics system."  It also
>looks just like a Harpoon in the picture.
>
>   I think this would qualify as a land-attack version of the Harpoon,
>but I don't know whether it's in actual use or not.
>

The AGM-84E Standoff Land Attack Missile, or SLAM, uses the Harpoon airframe 
with an electro-optical (TV) guidance system, with a similar warhead.  It can 
achieve ranges upwards of 50 nm, and was used with great success from A-6E's 
in Desert Storm against targets ranging from bridges to buildings.  

The SLAM is steered by the A-6's Bombadier/Navigator (BN) by means of a small 
CRT and joystick in the cockpit.  He lines the crosshairs up on the intended 
target and the missile flies toward it.  This keeps tha the launch aircraft out
of harms (SAM's) way, and can deliver an extremely accurate 500 lbs of 
destruction.

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier info.wanted !
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:07:18 GMT
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute


From gawne@stsci.edu

In article <C1D840.94v@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, "david.r.wells" 
<drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com> gives a laundrylist of carriers including:

> UK: 3, Invincible, Illustrious and Ark Royal.

Given that these are Harrier and Helo carriers shouldn't we also include
the LHA's and the LHD's like Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Pelilieu, and Wasp for the
US of A?  For that matter how about the LPH's?  They're flattops too.

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 MSgt USMCR
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)
Subject: Re: Space based combat--the next frontier
Organization: Netcom Online Communications Services (408-241-9760 login: guest)
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:45:55 GMT


From howard@netcom.com (Howard Berkey)

This is an interesting topic for many reasons.  To limit the scope a
little, how about trying to make some assumptions:

1.  There must be something to fight over

As Douglas Adams said, Space is a big place.  Really big.  Therefore,
the chance of an encounter in deep space should be relatively
small.  Most fights would probably take place either in orbit or near
a station or asteroid in orbit.  Another reason for this is that it's
relatively hard for large masses to leave orbit, and thus any defender
would be unlikely to spend large amounts of energy leaving the valuble
object they are defending (planet, station, asteroid) but would rather
let the attacker come to them.  They would also benefit from hiding in
a planet's electromagnetic/gravity/heat fields and thus defeat several
kinds of passive detection.

2.  Orbital velocities are large

And this means that ships would likely be closing on each other very
rapidly.  An obvious consequence of this is that kinetic weapons would
be very effective.  For example, a large number of ball bearings laid
out in your opponent's path would have roughly the same effect on his
ship as a claymore mine on an infantry squad.  It also meand that once
ships were commited to combat, disengagement would be difficult.
Another ramification is that it would be as easy for a frigate to kill
a battleship as another frigate, since all that really matters is
scoring a 'hit'.  Large ships would actually be at a disadvantage,
since the delta-vee required to move them would be larger.  For this
reason, I think ships would tend to be smaller.

3. Most seeker weapons would be nuclear

For obvious reasons, if a seeker weapon was to be used a large
warhead is a must due to the distances involved.  Large direct-fire weapons
would be impractical since they could be defeated by altering
velocities.  High-volume fire would be effective in a manner similar
to the ball-bearing minefield described above, so weapons similar to
Phalanx cannons in an offensive mode would be far more effective than
big guns.  This is another factor which favors small ship design.  And
a small ship could carry externally large numbers of nuclear guided
missiles.  Or submunitions.


Comments?

-Howard



-- 
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Howard Berkey						   howard@netcom.com
		"I AM the Lizard Queen" - Lisa Simpson
... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...    ... .. ...   ... .. ...   ... .. ...
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier info.wanted !
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:23:43 GMT
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden


From eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)


>From aggie@wealthy.ocean.fsu.edu

>According to my recollection of one of the posts appearing here, AVT-16
>_Lexington_ has already been decomissioned and scraped. Can anyone 
>confirm or deny that? 

>I would assume _Forrestal_ is already on duty, but I haven't had a
>chance to drive up to Pensacola lately.

According to World Air Power's book about US naval aviation, _Forrestal_ is
now AVT-59 and _Lexington_ out of commission. It's a very good book, btw.

cheers
--
     Erik Svensson
    Research Officer            National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
 Guided Weapons Division        Stockholm, Sweden      eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present"
 -- Hobbes
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Carrier info.wanted !
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:55:53 GMT


From Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>

In article <C1F7BL.LH9@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu writes:

>     1 x Varyag--Still under construction, I think under Ukrainian control;
>                reports last year said it was to be sold to China, but all
>                parties involved deny it; would need lots of work to get
>                functional

As far as I have heard, construction is continuing, either for the Ukranian 
navy or for international sale.  The Chinese and the Indians are major 
customer prospects, despite what either of them might say.  Both are in a 
position of becoming a major world power within the next 20 years, and a 
nuclear carrier would certainly help national image, if nothing else.

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Newsgroups: sci.military