HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: manuelp@ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald Nishanthan)
Subject: Re: depleted uranium
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:37:43 GMT


From manuelp@ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald Nishanthan)


From manuelp@ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald Nishanthan)

In article <BsKCDy.DpL@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America) writes:


>
> Aren't those uranium oxides somewhat chemically toxic?
>
> What about chemical contamination of ground waters?
>
> Any hard data on the uranium chemical contamination in Kuwait?
>

I found an article in the local paper a couple of days ago on DU.
According to the article, the US Food & Drug Administration estimates
that tank crews could receive the equivalent of 1 chest X-ray every 
20 - 30 hours.  The British Atomic Energy Authority had a report which
warned of the danger of toxic uranium dust when DU shells hit and burned
out Iraqi armoured vehicles.   It also says that the DU shells oxidize in
air, and when they hit something, or ricochet off the ground, the uranium
oxide particles flake off, remaining behind contaminating the soil etc.
The AEA also estimated that 40 tons of DU has been left behind in Iraq and
Kuwait.

The article also mentioned that DU is being incorporated into tank armour.
I hadn't previously heard about it, can anybody shed anymore light onto 
this?  (I think the X-ray/20-30 hr rate is probably for DU armoured tanks).

Anyway, it seems that DU can indeed pose a serious hazard, BUT, I also have
to say that this article was written by somebody protesting the use of 
Canadian uranium for military purposes ( Canadian law prohibits uranium
exports for military use, kind of :-) ).  It probably contains a lot of
selective embellishments, flag waving etc., but still interesting.

Gerald 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: roten@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Roten)
Subject: Re: How to spike a gun?
Organization: /cuba_b/dirbe/roten/.organization
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 13:54:07 GMT


From roten@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov (Charles Roten)

In article <BsKCnp.E2s@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dgfritz@rodan.acs.syr.edu 
(Doug Fritz) writes:

>Spiking a gun such as a cannon or artillery piece disables the
>gun, but how does a foot soldier spike a gun?

The term comes from the days when muzzle-loading cannon were fired by 
applying a flame to a touch-hole near the breech, igniting the black 
powder propellent charge inside.  

To disable such a gun in a way that cannot be reversed easily in the 
field, just drive a spike through the touch-hole.  Thus, the origin of 
the term.  

This was typically done when a battery of such cannon was about to be 
overrun by an opposing force.  

These days, you loose/disable the breechblock.  

--
Charles Roten | Hughes-STX, Incorporated | 
  roten@cuba.gsfc.nasa.gov               | 'Use the Source, Luke!'
  7601 Ora-Glen Dr., Greenbelt, MD 20706 | 
  301-513-7805 (w),  301-317-0872 (h)    |            Obi-Wan Stallman

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: portal!cup.portal.com!Arthur_T_Hu@pyramid.pyramid.com.UUX
Subject: B-1 operational in conventional role
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 17:52:43 GMT


From portal!cup.portal.com!Arthur_T_Hu@pyramid.pyramid.com.UUX

The july 27 Aviation Week has an excellent series on how the B-1B is now
up and running in the conventional role for dropping iron bombs. Says it's
very much like an F-15E or F-111 in performance, and has no problem 
outrunning fighters at low level. Since weapons are stored internally,
many radars can't even see it, where escorting F-15E's will tip off
radars because of their external stores. There isn't any money yet to
upgrade B-1B to F-15E avionics standard with LANTIRN, laser designators,
Global positioning (gee, I can get one at Fry's for $1500), secure
radios compatible with F-15E etc. Too bad it's still basically a really
stealthy way to deliver carpet bombs, but still NFG at laser precision
bombing.

Sen. Nunn says the Navy should retire its A-6 and F-18 bombers since the
re isn't anything carrier based bombers can do that the B-2 can't
(say what???) 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: chf0@newshost.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)
Subject: Re: V22 Osprey/ F/A-18 Crashes
Organization: GTE Laboratories, Waltham, MA
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:26:29 GMT


From chf0@newshost.gte.com (Curtis Fennell)


In article <Bsw19A.15v@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, twh18@isuvax.iastate.edu (Phoenix) writes:
|> 	Here are few other questions I had:
|> 1.  I was reading a novel by Larry Bond called Red Phoenix.  In the book,
|> it said that the Dragon anti-tank missile had a minimum range of 300
|> Meters or so. Well, I don't get it.  Fighter missiles has a minimum
|> range because they don't want missile lock to it's launcher or they
|> don't want launch aircraft crash into debris.  I just don't see
|> why Dragon need 300M to fire, as far as I know,the LAW missile 
|> doesn't have a minumum range. (or at lesast, it's 10 feet compare
|> to the Dragon).
|> 
|> [mod note -- the Dragon is a wire guided weapon, and I believe that the 300
|> meters is needed for the warhead to be armed and for the missile to get up
|> to speed ]

There is also a period of time between the weapon leaving the launch
tube and the time when it is acquired by the sight and can be actively
controlled by the operator.  However, I believe that 300 meters is too
big.  The actual acquisition/arming range on a Dragon is closer to 100
meters.

|> 3.  Also, does anyone know the saftey envelop of jet fighter's
|> Ejection?  I mean is there're a speed and/or altitude that will
|> enable you eject safely?  I am talking about eject from a Jet
|> Fighter like F-15/F-16 here.

Most modern jet fighters have "zero-zero" seats in them.  That means
that the seat will safely allow a pilot to eject from them if they are
sitting stationary on the runway.  

Successful ejections, however, are defined in physically in terms of
vectors - the aircraft's motion vector, the force of gravity and the
seat's motion vector. The combination of these vectors creates an
"envelope" for ejection that is calculated for that aircraft and
included in the aircraft's operations' manual.  This "envelope" is
based on the aircraft's altitude, attitude, airspeed and the
parameters of the seat.

It is perfectly reasonable for an aircraft to have a "zero-zero"
ejection seat and for it to be unsafe to eject from the same aircraft
at an altitude of 3000 feet when it is falling inverted (not an
uncommon occurance for aircraft that enter inverted spins - which some
do, especially after low-speed, high angle-of-attack manuvers).

Most aviators know the parameters of ejection for their aircraft very
well. In the A-6 Intruder, NATOPS (The naval aircraft operations
manual for the A-6), stated that the proper emergency procedure for
"uncontrolled" flight below 10,000 feet AGL was ejection. Most
avaitors I knew would wait longer than that, but not too much.

Semper Fi,
Curt

-- 
Curt Fennell			* chf0@gte.com
Unix System Administrator	* (617) 466-2142
GTE Labs, 40 Sylvan Road	* "Get down off that cross!
Waltham, MA, 02254		*  Somebody needs the wood"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: manuelp@ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald Nishanthan)
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago: Thursday, 23 July, 1942
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:43:30 GMT


From manuelp@ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald Nishanthan)

In article <Bsw1Ks.2CF@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> greg@anacapa.ncel.navy.mil (Gregory K. Ramsey) writes:
>
>From greg@anacapa.ncel.navy.mil (Gregory K. Ramsey)
>
>
>In article <1992Jul23.183510.19098@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker) writes:
>>
>>US Secretary of State Hull suggests that an international peace-keeping
>>force be formed by the United Nations after the war, and urges neutral
>>nations to join the Allies.
>>
>If I remember my history right, the United Nations did not
>come into existence until after WW2.  Was Hull a visionary or was
>he just using "United Nations" as a synonom for the Allies?
>

I believe the (political?) term for the anti-Axis coalition was 'UNited
Nations'.  It was quite extensively used in it's time.  In fact, it
meant the same thing in WW1 as well.   I guess it was handy when it came
time to make it permanent and formal after the war.  Besides, it sounded
impressive :)

Gerald
From: UDRJ004@OAK.CC.KCL.AC.UK (GLEN SEGELL)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: RE Light aircraft for CAS
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:40:54 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department


From GLEN SEGELL <UDRJ004@OAK.CC.KCL.AC.UK>

An alternative to using light aircraft for CAS has been to use light jet
trainers modified for CAS. Two good examples have been the BAe Hawk by
both Britain and export countries and the Aereomachi Trainer modified
into the Impala by the South African Air Force. These overcome the weight
problems that would be encountered by use of light piston aircraft and 
are very cheap and versatile in a low or no threat operational environment.

Glen Segell
Department of War Studies King's College London UDRJ004@[137.73.2.2]
From: mpietil1@vipunen.hut.fi (Mikko P Pietil{)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: why welcrow insignia
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:47:00 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department


From Mikko P Pietil{ <mpietil1@vipunen.hut.fi>

  While serving in Finnish Air force I was told that shoulder badges and
  symbols of rank were attached with welcro to avoid foreign object damage.
  Normally brass symbols are used in uniforms and they tend to fall away
  every now and then.
  
  We were also told not to keep anything unnecessary in our pockets while
  doing aircraft maintenance, for not to drop anything on runway or 
  inside airplanes.
  
  For same reason no buttons were used on clothes used when working on
  planes. The clothes were made of materials not generating static electricity,
  and when working with armed weapons even underwear was supposed to be
  officially approved.
  -- 
  Mikko Pietil{                         Mikko.Pietila@hut.fi
                                        mpietil1@vipunen.hut.fi
                                  
  "Die Natur der Zeit ist Sorge"
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)
Subject: Re: Warbird Survival Tally
Organization: School of Statistics, University of Minnesota
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:49:33 GMT


From rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu (Robert J. Granvin)

In article <Bsw0o9.M2p@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, rwood@idicl1.idi.battelle.org (Rich Wood) writes:
|> The following list was published in a recent edition of the Hump 
|> Pilots Association Newsletter.  There was no accompanying article 
|> or further explanation of the source of this info.

Source would be very interesting, especially since this list has to be
nearly impossible to keep current.

|>                         WORLDWIDE WARBIRD SURVIVAL TALLY:
|>                  PROPELLER-DRIVEN FIGHTERS & BOMBERS AS OF 4/7/92
|>                               By Dennis D. Bergstrom
|> 
|>          Type           Flying or   Being    Stored or   Museum/
|>                          Flyable   Restored  status unk.  Display  Total
|>    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
|>    P-51 Mustang            125        42        54         54       275

It's also not a great list.

For example, if you were talking about P-51C Mustang, the chart would look
like:

            Type           Flying or   Being    Stored or   Museum/
                            Flyable   Restored  status unk.  Display  Total
      ---------------------------------------------------------------------
      P-51C Mustang             2         0         1          1         4

But it's very misleading.

First, there were fewer C model Mustangs built than any other model.  There
are only four known to exist anywhere today.  The Stored or Status column
can't be calculated without researching the location and/or disposition of
EVERY 51C built.  Ouch.  Compared against the total number of "P-51s," the
C model column is VERY interesting.

Next, none of these are flying.  Two will at some point, but two never
will.  Of those two "flyable" aircraft, both are in restoration.  But by
the way the chart totals numbers, one can only put those aircraft in one
or the other column.  Which?

Restoration is vague.  Restoration to static display or restoration to
flying status?  Very different goals, procedures and results.   In my
opinion, they require separate columns.

All in all, interesting basic numbers, but not a good chart.  It would
be nice to question the author as to source, how accurate the numbers 
are and then encourage a much better chart to be developed if the author
actually HAS up to date and current information.  Otherwise, the data is
really pretty useless.  :-(

-- 
Robert J. Granvin                                       School of Statistics
rjg@umnstat.stat.umn.edu                             University of Minnesota

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Stephen L Pendergast <spend@csd-1g.hac.com>
Subject: Turn the Sub Skippers Loose
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:26:34 GMT


From Stephen L Pendergast <spend@csd-1g.hac.com>




From Stephen L Pendergast <spend@csd-1g.hac.com>

In August 1992 Proceedings, page 35, there is an article by LCdr Truman J Best,
USN entitled "Turn the Sub Skippers Loose!". In it he attacks the slavish
adherence to NWP tactics and the use of passive only tactics. The thing that
stunned me was the following paragraph:

"US Navy torpedo exercise results indicate that only about 10% of all firings 
result in hits outside the minimum desired range. This means that only one out
of ten passive only torpedo attacks destroyed the target withou destroying
the attacker. The figures are based on a target SSN that is not using torpedo
countermeasures. If countermeasures were employed, the hit percentage would
probably be lower. There must be a better way to gain tactical advantage over
the potential adversary."

At that rate torpedo CM seem hardly worth the bother. Can anyone comment on
the causes for lack of effectiveness of torpedo attacks on submarines. Any
historical figures. I don't recall that sub-vs.-sub battles have occured in
any hot war where the subs were equipped with homing torpedos. This sure is
different than the picture you get in Clancy's "Hunt for Red October".

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen L Pendergast, Senior Scientist/Engineer, Hughes Aircraft Company 
Ground Systems Group, PO Box 3310 Bldg 604/MS B152, Fullerton, CA 92634
Voice: (714)732-2579  Personal - No Company/Official Responsibility
Email: penderga@hac2arpa.hac.com           Fax: (714)732-0242
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: billb@owlnet.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell)
Subject: Re: 20mm ammo for Phalanx (was Tracers)
Organization: Rice University
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 1992 12:44:10 GMT


From billb@owlnet.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell)

In article <BszLnJ.G7z@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, mchui@spinner.cs.indiana.edu (Michael Chui) writes:
|> 
|> From Michael Chui <mchui@spinner.cs.indiana.edu>
|> 
|> >From jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis)
|> [snip]
|> >	(the SAS use tungsten coated 9mm in their HK-MP5 submachine-guns
|> >	to avoid overpenetration that might leave the enemy standing), 
|> 
|> References?  Would the use of materials technology to manufacture
|> expanding military rounds be legal under the Geneva Convention?
|> 
Being more into Poli Sci/Econ rather than Metallurgy, I wouldn`t know for 
sure, but I would think that this would cause greater penetration to 
ensure a "kill" rather than a "casualty".  This follows from what I know
about standard anti-terrorist policy, i.e. if you have to go in, they don't 
come out ;-).  If you wanted to make an expander, just use a dum-dum and 
notch the tip.  (Whoops, I didn't say that...)  Either way, it's not against
the Geneva convention because 1) the GC is largely ignored by many 3rd world
nations, and 2) because they aren't being used against soldiers in a declared
war, i.e. outside the GCs jurisdiction.  

-- 
Bill Blackwell             P H P <==me!   "A just request is to be met
billb@owlnet.rice.edu     F L L F       in silence, by the act."
Houston, Texas, USA          8       -Dante Alighieri "Inferno" XXIV ln.77-78
"My opinions are mine, no one else is that stupid"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: sdr57@cas.org
Subject: Re: depleted uranium
Organization: Chemical Abstracts Service, Columbus, Ohio
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 1992 18:38:07 GMT


From sdr57@cas.org

>
>From barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)
>
>
> Aren't those uranium oxides somewhat chemically toxic?

The *oxides* are not particularly toxic - quoting from
"Casarett and Doull's Toxicology" (2nd Ed., 1980, p. 460):
  Inhalation exposure of rats, dogs, and monkeys to uranium
  dioxide dust at a concentration of 5 mg U/M3 [M3 = cubic
  meter] for up to five years produced accumulation in the
  lungs and tracheobronchial lymph nodes that accounted for
  90 percent of the body burden. No evidence of toxicity
  was observed despite the unusually long duration of the
  experimental investigation.

The reference for the study from which this was abstracted
is Leach, et al, Health Phys., 18:599-612, 1970.

(This does not mean the oxides are harmless - the uranium
isotopes commonly found decay by the emission of alpha
particles - this is believed to cause cancer)

Other uranium *salts* (fluorides, nitrates) can be quite toxic.

>
> What about chemical contamination of ground waters?

Uranium oxides are generally insoluble in water (see the
CRC Handbook). Other uranium *salts* can be quite soluble.

Another poster asked about the burning of uranium to
produce uranium oxide. Uranium metal will burn in air
at 150-175 degrees C (less than twice the temperature
at which water boils), a condition which would easily
be obtained on impact with a target by a DU round.
(see the Merck Index entry for Uranium).
******************************************************************************
Renegade academician. They're a dangerous breed when they go feral,
academics are...a chemist, too.
		    -(James P. Blaylock in "Lord Kelvin's Machine")

My organization hasn't agreed with any of my opinions so far, and
I doubt they'll start now.

Stanley "Ya nee speon" Roberts


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: urf@ki.icl.se (Urban)
Subject: Short news
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 13:18:50 GMT


From urf@ki.icl.se (Urban)

Ilyushin has shown its Il-102 prototype, which flew a decade ago
as a competitor to the Su-25. It's larger, low-winged, two
turbofans in the wing roots and a rear cockpit about over the
wing trailing edge for the tail gun operator.

The 'AMRAAMski' missile, with lattice wings, is 3,6 m long, has a
high-altitude range against non-manouvering head-on targets of 80
km, slightly less than 20 km at low altitude, in tail-chases
about 25 km. An IR seeker is beeing developed for it.

Ch-35 is a 130 km turbojet anti-ship missile. Air- ground- and
ship-launched version (may be SS-N-25).

There is an anti-ship variant of the Mach 4,5 ramjet-powered
Ch-31 missile with a range of 50 km. The anti-radar variant has a
range of 100 km.

[Flight International 19-25 Aug 1992]
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson urf@icl.se (Or: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "CINCLANTFLT PAO" <CLFPAO@nctamslant.navy.mil>
Subject: Navy News Service Headlines - 31 Jul 92
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:22:44 GMT


From "CINCLANTFLT PAO" <CLFPAO@nctamslant.navy.mil>




From "CINCLANTFLT PAO" <CLFPAO@nctamslant.navy.mil>

Here are the headlines from the latest issue of the Navy News
Service, the weekly summary of Navy news and information
published by the Navy Internal Relations Activity in Washington.
To receive a complete copy of this issue or to subscribe to
NavNews by e-mail, contact navnews@nctamslant.navy.mil. 

NAVY NEWS SERVICE 31 JULY 1992  (NAVNEWS 031/92)

     Navy News Service (NAVNEWS) contains official news and
information and is intended for distribution to all Navy people.
Please help pass the word.  NAVNEWS is available:
     -- by message to the NAVNEWS collective address 
     -- on the CNO Bulletin Board, 1-800-582-2355/6940 or (703)
695-6198/6388 
     -- by electronic mail from NAVNEWS(at)NCTAMSLANT.NAVY.MIL 
     -- and on the BUPERS ACCESS bulletin board, 1-800-346-
0217/18/27, 1-800-762-8567 or (703) 614-8070/6059/8076, (DSN) 224-
8070.
                              -USN-

     TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR NAVNEWS 031/92
A. Top News and Policy Stories
     A1. Details Announced on Navy Standing Committee on Women
     A2. Navy Concludes Investigation into Tomcat Follies
     A3. Enlisted Selective Early Retirement Boards Convening Soon 
     A4. Navy Selects 509 New Staff Commanders
     A5. Critical Housing Area Listing Updated
     A6. Notable Quotable:  Chief of Naval Personnel VADM R.J.
Zlatoper in a Navy News This Week interview July 30, 1992
B. Around the Fleet
     B1. American Warship Rescues Iranian Sailors Adrift in Gulf
     B2. NAS Moffett Field Aircrew Rescues Crew of Stricken Trawler
     B3. NAVSTA Pascagoula Opens, USS Gallery Changes Homeport
     B4. New Arleigh Burke Class Ship Named
     B5. Environmental Efforts Paying Off
     B6. Speakers' Note:  One Vote Can Make a Difference
     B7. Salute to Excellence:  No Effort Spared for Poisoned
Infant    
     B8. This Week in the Navy: July 30, 1942  
C. Personnel Notes:
     C1. MCPON Releases CPO Initiation Guidelines
     C2. Credit for Combat Action Ribbon
     C3. Verification of Military Experience and Training
D. Short Splices
     D1. ADM Edney Retires
     D2. Flag/General Officer Moves 
     D3. Navy News This Week  
                              -USN-
From: UDRJ004@OAK.CC.KCL.AC.UK (GLEN SEGELL)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: RE Aurora
Date: 20 Aug 92 16:40:37 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department


From GLEN SEGELL <UDRJ004@OAK.CC.KCL.AC.UK>

As far as I can remember Aurora flies at around Mach 4.5 from Pole to Pole
where there is, amongs other locations, a special airfield in Northern
Scotland guarded by US Speical Forces Marines.

Glen Segell 
Department of War Studies King's College London UDRJ004@[137.73.2.2]
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wxb4@po.CWRU.Edu (William Blighglover)
Subject: P-3's and Brunswick NAS
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio, (USA)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:22:51 GMT


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




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


	Does anyone know how many P-3's are stationed at Brunswick
NAS?  When I took MCATS at Bowdoin one went overhead every 15 
minutes exavtly.  The last time I was there, I passed the base, 
and it looked like there was one low-visibility grey one and one
white one taking off and landing alternately.  Are there any more
planes on this base?  And were they really doing anything or were
they trying to fool the taxpayer (or the Russians?)
Thanks!
-- 
William Zeus Bligh-Glover   Prospero on IRC   wxb4@po.cwru.edu
	Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine
		Pathology		Poison Centre
Basic research is what I do when I don't know what I'm doing. WvB

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: quest!curt (Curtis Gibson)
Subject: making a radar decoy
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 1992 20:38:58 GMT


From quest!curt (Curtis Gibson)


From quest!curt (Curtis Gibson)

Would anyone care to comment on what will "fool" a radar?  Will
papermache covered with aluminum foil pass as a real truck or plane?
If not, what kind of reflective surface would be needed? ( I am
assuming the size and shape of the decoy are exactly the same 
as the real thing.)  Thanks.

Curtis S. Gibson    curt%quest.UUCP@cs.umn.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military