HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lahaye@reg.triumf.ca (RAYMOND GABIN , TRIUMF OPERATIONS)
Subject: Re: Anti-Patriot media is at it again
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:40:39 GMT


From lahaye@reg.triumf.ca (RAYMOND GABIN , TRIUMF OPERATIONS)

In article <BvE5Cx.28u@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson) writes...
> 
>From pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
> 
>In article <BvArGq.91I@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan
>Sorenson) writes, in part:
> 
>>	I was unable to watch the show in question, but on A&E
>>last night there was supposed to be an "Investigative Report"
>>item on the effectiveness of the Patriot missile system during
>>Desert Storm.  I'm hoping somebody did watch it and can post a
>>synopsis of what was seen as the flaw.
> 
>                     [ lot of good stuff deleted]
>	If there was a "message", it was that Patriot's performance had
>	shown that SDI was not going to be easy (but we knew that...).  (How
>	comes SDI into it, one may ask?  BOTH "sides" of the SDI debate used
>	Patriot as a "stalking horse".  Pro-SDI saying "see.  we CAN shoot down
>	missles."  Anti-SDI countering:  "Nuts.  You missed 90+% of the time".
>	The final Pentagon figures are (i think) 50+%.  Not the 90+% originally
>	claimed, nor the 90+5 MISS rate that others trumpet.
> 
	While I am in perfect agreement with you for not believing figures
that are radically different, I do not however trust anything that the Pentagon
alledges to be true: final figures have a tendancy to become less final as
"independent" investigations are made IMHO.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
Subject: Some Swedish news
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:49:33 GMT


From Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>

About that torpedo, it seems like (maybe) a firing permit was
delayed by a regional commander, thus forcing the ASW task force
to fire warning shots (depth charges) before the torpedo was
launched.

The Swedish Army is negotiating with Germany about the purchase
of 1000 second hand, Soviet made, dirt cheap APC:s. It is said
you get two of them for the price of a Volvo 740.
The news didn't say which model, only that it has a crew of 10.
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se  (n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk)
 Knowledge is power: Read books!

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: morlan@afit.af.mil (Bruce W. Morlan)
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Organization: Air Force Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:59:18 GMT


From morlan@afit.af.mil (Bruce W. Morlan)

dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:



>From (Tomas Eriksson)
>> 
>> Let's assume that these submarine activities against Sweden, Norway and a 
>> few other places were given high priority and a lot of resources. Remember
>> that crew saftey had *low* priority, and remember that the Soviet Union 
>> produced satellites with nuclear reactors. If the intruding subs are 
>> indeed 30 m long (I think I've heard slightly smaller numbers - a 
>> Swedish 1,000 ton submarine is about 50 m long), this is probably
>> sufficient to install a small nuclear reactor.

>From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)

>Diesel/Electric subs are much much quieter than a nuclear sub and this is why
>they are the perfered sub for shallow water operations.  True, they cannot 

>small size would also limit speed.  Plus the faster the nuclear sub goes, the
>noise problem gets only worst.  Thus, if the sub needs to get away fast, it

Yes, but the type of reactor used in satellites is not the noisy type
used in subs.  At least, as far as I know, the satellites use direct
heat-to-power (thermoelectric) vice the usual heat-motion-power of a
turbine system.  

Such a system would be much more efficient in a sub with convective
cooling than is possible in space, where getting a temperature gradiant
involves broadcasting heat radiatively through a vacuum.

-- 
Bruce W. Morlan, Major, USAF             Air Force Institute of Technology
Dept. Department Head                    AFIT/ENC
Department of Mathematics                WPAFB  OH  45433
From: jfb@ihlpl.att.com (Joseph F Baugher)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Number Twenty-One in the Series--the Curtiss XP-21
Keywords: Yet another strange designation, experimental
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:03:57 GMT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois


From Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>


The Curtiss XP-21 is yet another example of the infuriatingly 
inconsistent designation system used by the USAAC during the 1920s and 
early 1930s.  

The history of the XP-21 begins with the Curtiss P-3 pursuit.  The P-3 
was an attempt to adapt the Curtiss P-1 single-seat biplane fighter to 
a radial engine.  The last P-1A of the series (Ser.  No 26-300) had 
been modified as the XP-3A with the replacement of the original 
liquid-cooled Curtiss D-12 by a 410 hp Pratt and Whitney R-1340-3 
air-cooled radial engine.  This airplane flew for the first time in 
April 1928, and became the prototype for the P-3A series, of which 
only five examples were built (Ser Nos 28-189/193).  

In 1930, XP-3A Ser No 26-300 and P-3A Ser No 28-189 were used as 
flying test-beds for the new 300 hp Pratt and Whitney R-985 Wasp 
Junior engine.  These planes were then redesignated XP-21.  This new 
designation was intended to identify a particular test configuration 
and was not intended to indicate a new prototype.  The first flight of 
an XP-21 took place in December 1930.  Tests did not convince the Army 
that there was any intrinsic superiority of the radial engine as a 
powerplant for the Hawk.  Consequently, XP-21 Ser No 28-189 was later 
fitted with a D-12 engine and became a standard P-1F.  However, XP-21 
Ser No 26-300 continued on as a testbed and became XP-21A when it was 
fitted with an improved 300 hp R-975 Wasp Junior engine.  

Sources: 

  United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and 
  Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.  

  The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 
  1987.  

  Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947, Peter M.  Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 
  1987.  

  "The Curtiss Army Hawks", Peter M.  Bowers, Aircraft in Profile, 
  Doubleday, 1969.  

Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Subject: Re: Anti-Satellite Weapons
Organization: Chevron
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:43:41 GMT


From hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)

In article <BvFzKo.Hv@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
|> The US system was different.  It involved a rocket strapped to the bottom of
|> a F-15.  The pilot would deliver the weapon to a pre-determined spot and time
|> where the enemy satellite was going over.  The missile would be launched and
|> directed to the oncoming satellite for a (I believe) direct skin-to-skin 
|> contact or near enough to set off a proximity fuse sending metal fragments
|> into the satellite to destroy it.  Basically, a large AAW missile for low
|> earth orbit.  Clancy's second book, _Red Storm Rising_, describes how it would
|> be used in greater detail than what I just wrote.

   The ASAT is indeed taken to high altitue by an F-15 to a pre-determined
   point in space appropriate to intercept the desired target satellite.
   Esstenially, after take off, the aircraft is directed by ground control
   until after launch.  The pilot is just along for the ride and to bring
   the F-15 back after launch.  After reaching the pre-determined point,
   the F-15 executes a sharp dive and pull-up manuvuer.  This provides 
   extra energy to slingshot the rocket up and away from the F-15.  The
   rocket is released, is flung away, and the rocket motor fires shortly
   afterwards.  The rocket climbs to the desired orbit and releases the
   the "warhead" on a "head-on" collision course with the target satellite.
   The "warhead" acquires and tracks the target satellite and manuveurs to
   strike the target.  There are NO explosives.  Though only roughly the 
   size of a 2 gal can of paint, it is traveling at several miles per sec!
   No proximaty fuzes or such, it is required to actually hit its target.

   Amusing tale - when the ASAT was first tested against a real satellite,
   an old weather/geological OSCAR type, the Air Force forgot to tell the
   OSCAR's ground operators.  Boy, you should have heard the fuss when ol'
   OSCAR stop responding quite suddenly.

 
|> As far as their current operational status, I don't think either are useable
|> due to the recent arm-control treaties.  Its not a good thing to monitor the
|> treaties from space if the other side keeps destroying your survelliance
|> satellites ;-)   Thus, I think each side agreed to ban their use.  If I am
|> mistaken, please let me know the real details.

   Congress has banned the use of ASAT and others as a part of SALT II or START.
   And/or I think they don't allow any budget for it either.


 TMH

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gps-request@esseye.si.com (Andy Arkusinski)
Subject: GPS Digest
Followup-To: sci.electronics
Organization: Smiths Industries
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:43:49 GMT


From gps-request@esseye.si.com (Andy Arkusinski)

A new Global Positioning System (GPS) Digest mailing list is being formed. 
Submissions will be accepted on the following topics (but not be limited
to):


      - Basic GPS Operational Concepts
      - USAF Navstar News Releases
      - Constellation Status
      - Satellite Vehicle (SV) News
      - User Equipment (UE) News / Receiver Reviews
      - Differential GPS
      - General Aviation GPS Receivers
      - Intelligent Vehicle Highway System (IHVS) Applications
      - Vehicle Tracking Applications
      - Marine Applications
      - Mapping Applications
      - Surveying Applications
      - Selective Availability (SA) - Anti-Spoofing (AS)
      - GLONASS (Russian Sat Pos System)


The GPS Digest will be moderated by Andy Arksusinski and Ken Jongsma.
Andy and Ken are senior engineers with Smiths Industries, a large 
international aerospace firm, with experience in military GPS applications.
Until the volume of messages dictate otherwise, messages will be
transmitted
in digest format on a periodic basis, with limited/minimal editing.

Requests to subscribe may be made to 

                       gps-request@esseye.si.com

Submissions may be made to 

                       gps@esseye.si.com



Andy Arkusinski                                 arkusinski_andy@si.com
Smiths Industries                               arkusinski@swdev.si.com
4141 Eastern Ave, SE
Grand Rapids, MI  49518-8727

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: baldwin@csservera.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)
Subject: National Reconnaissance Office EXPOSED!!
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:44:56 GMT


From baldwin@csservera.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin)

The Washington Post had an article Friday or Saturday that reported that
the National Reconnaissance Office had gone "public"--that is, its existence
has been officially acknowledged.  Previously, the very existence of this
$5-6 billion (annually) program was classified TS with a codeword I won't
repeat here.

The NRO, the largest U.S. intelligence agency (in terms of budget), is 
responsible for collection and analysis of overhead imagery (satellites and
spy planes).  They released a press statement through their newly-created
"Office of External Relations" (I'll bet that rankles some old-timers!).
Speculation is, of course, that they went public for the same reason other
"black" programs often do:  their existence and budget are in jeopardy and
must be defended more publicly to continue.

Of course, this office's existence and even its location and some staffing
information have been semi-public knowledge for years and years.  But it's
nice to know that one can now discuss it with a clear conscience, so to 
speak.
--
 From the catapult of:              |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I
   _,_  J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept|+| say, I am quite prepared not only to
 _|70|___:::)=}-  U.S. Naval Academy|+| retract it, but also to deny under
 \      /   baldwin@usna.navy.mil   |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Nineteenth in the Series--The Curtiss XP-19
Keywords: Never built
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:34:06 GMT


From Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>


The Curtiss XP-19 was a proposed low-wing monoplane fighter built 
around the new Wright V-1560 12-cyliner inline air-cooled engine.  The 
Wright engine was cancelled, and the XP-19 project never got off the 
drawing board 

Sources: 

  The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 
  1987.  

Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:19:51 GMT


From pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)

In article <BvE5D6.29n@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov
(Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes, in part:

>Remember a week or so ago, when somebody on this newsgroup reminded us
>that the first flight of a V-2 (A-4, if you prefer) into "space" had
>taken place fifty years ago, in October 1942?

>Monday I heard a news account that ceremonies to celebrate this
>event have become a matter of controversy.  

>Has anybody heard more detail?
	I haven't.

>Has the story appeared in print?
	It was on the UPI news wire.

>In this country, the Confederate Air Force is allowed to tell us what
>a great plane the B-17 was without visible interference...

	They have been criticized for doing "simulated atomic bombings" though.
	I think there has been criticism of the concept of warbirds in
	general as "raking up old wounds".  (I do not share that view, if it
	needs saying...)

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
146 Main St			|I am the NRA.
Maynard, Mass	
01754				pierson@majsty.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Followup-To: sci.military,sci.space
Organization: Oxford University VAX 6620
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:42:33 GMT


From daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk

In article <BvE5D6.29n@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov (Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes:
>
> <stuff deleted>
> 
> Has anybody heard more detail [about the A-4 anniversary] ?  
> Has the story appeared in print?
> 
> Apparently the fact that the A-4 was a nasty weapon that killed lots
> of people overshadows the importance of the anniversary.  
> 

The ceremony to mark the 50th anniversary of the A-4's first flight has indeed
been cancelled. Relations between Britain and Germany are not good at the
moment, and it would appear that the Germans have decided not to make them
worse...

BTW, a test "bouncing bomb" has been hauled out of the English Channel, and it
apparently going to be put into a museum. Talk about double standards! How many
people were killed when these weapons were used to breach the German dams?

Dave

-- 

David Hastings                      | "Imposition of order=escalation of chaos"
VAX Systems Programmer              |                     
Oxford University Computing Services| "Just when you think you've won the 
daveh@vax.oxford.ac.uk              |        rat race, along come faster rats"
               

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Subject: Re: Anti-Patriot media is at it again
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:29:20 GMT


From pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)

In article <BvArGq.91I@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, viking@iastate.edu (Dan
Sorenson) writes, in part:

>	I was unable to watch the show in question, but on A&E
>last night there was supposed to be an "Investigative Report"
>item on the effectiveness of the Patriot missile system during
>Desert Storm.  I'm hoping somebody did watch it and can post a
>synopsis of what was seen as the flaw.

	I watched it.  My observations on Invetigative Reports, in the past,
	has been that they can be somewhat less than objective. (IMO, natch...).

	I was, at the end of the our reasonably impressed.  They had presented
	a history (most of sci.mil knows that), then followed thru upgrade and
	deployment.

	They presented analysis of both sets of claims (original 90%+, the
	"no SDI" Camp claims of sub 5%, and the later, "Pentagon" reports of
	50-60%.  The reported on the alleged misses, and the Raytheon explantion
	of why some of the misses were, in fact, kills.

	I was, in fact, pleasantly surprised in what (I thought) was a balanced
	presentation.  It was not a "D**n the Patriot" piece (which they could
	have done.)  They presented (accurately, IMO) the difficulties of what
	was tried.

	If there was a "message", it was that Patriot's performance had
	shown that SDI was not going to be easy (but we knew that...).  (How
	comes SDI into it, one may ask?  BOTH "sides" of the SDI debate used
	Patriot as a "stalking horse".  Pro-SDI saying "see.  we CAN shoot down
	missles."  Anti-SDI countering:  "Nuts.  You missed 90+% of the time".
	The final Pentagon figures are (i think) 50+%.  Not the 90+% originally
	claimed, nor the 90+5 MISS rate that others trumpet.

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
pierson@majsty.enet.dec.com	|I am the NRA.
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Subject: Re: Marine Aircover <was New Carrier Plan>
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:27:33 GMT


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

jumper@garfield.catt.ncsu.edu (Michael Lanham) writes:


>One of the most striking reasons could be found if you asked the guys on the
>ground.  I have read stories, testimonials, and seen citations of
>reports(though I could not begin to name them) where the infantry folks, FA

I don't doubt that the Marine air force isn't wonderful.  I too have
heard this.  Still, somethubg needs to be cut.  I'm quite sure of
that.  Even if you disagree with me, it seems clear that political
realities will *require* substancial cuts in defence budgets.

Here is my latest hair-brained idea.  From what I read, a modenr
carrier has about 16 ASW helocopters aboard.  Why cannot we replace
these with F-18's (there seem to be enough).  This woudl trade ASW
strength for air power.

I think this is a good trade. The most obvious uses for American
carriers is off the coast of third world nations.  Although many of
these nations have sub fleets, it is much more common to have an air
force.  Further, most nations (especially third world ones) put much
more money into their air force than the sub fleet.  Finally, much of
our ASW capacity was built to counter the soviet threat.  Now that
this threat has dissapiated, we have room to cut the ASW capability.

Also, notice that many ships (crusiers, distroyers, frigates) can
carry helocopters, only the carrier can carry attack planes.

Why is this a budget cut.  By increasing the power of each carrier, we
can perhaps make do with fewer.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Twenty-Second in the series--the Curtiss XP-22
Keywords: led to P-6E
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:38:30 GMT


From Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>


The Curtiss XP-22 is one of the steps in the convoluted process of 
evolution and adaptation which produced the famous Curtiss P-6E 
pursuit.  It was basically the third P-6A (Ser No 29-262) which was 
used to test new radiator and oil cooler installations for a V-1570-23 
engine.  Under the bizarre designation scheme used by the Army during 
the late 1920s and early 1930s, the experimental use of a different 
engine was thought to call for an entirely new designation, and the 
aircraft was redesignated XP-22.  Final modification produced an 
entirely new nose, with belly radiator and oil cooler, machine guns 
lowered to troughts on the sides of the fuselage under the engine 
cylinder banks rather than between them as on previous versions.  A 
new single-leg undercarriage was also installed.  

The XP-22 flew for the first time in June of 1931.  Weights were 2597 
lbs empty, 3354 lb gross.  During tests, the XP-22 achieved a maximum 
speed of 202.4 mph at sea level and 195.5 mph at 10,000 feet.  Initial 
climb rate was 2400 ft/min, and an altitude of 5000 feet could be 
attained in 2.3 minutes.  Service ceiling was 26,500 feet.  Armament 
consisted of a pair of 0.30-cal machine guns mounted on the fuselage 
sides and synchronized to fire through the propeller arc.  

In June 1931, a flyoff was held between a standard P-6, a standard 
Boeing P-12, a YP-20 with the Cyclone radial, and the XP-22.  The 
XP-22's speed of 202.5 mph at sea level gained it the upper hand over 
all its rivals, and won it an order for 46 service test versions under 
the designation Y1P-22.  However, for budgetary reasons, this 
designation was changed to P-6C and finally to P-6E before the planes 
were delivered.  

After the tests were completed, these new features were removed from 
the XP-22 and were replaced by the original equipment, and the 
aircraft reverted to a standard P-6A.  

Sources: 

  United States Military Aircraft Since 1909, Gordon Swanborough and 
  Peter Bowers, Smithsonian Institution Press, 1989.  

  The American Fighter, Enzo Angellucci and Peter Bowers, Orion Books, 
  1987.  

  Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947, Peter M.  Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 
  1987.  

  "The Curtiss Army Hawks", Peter M.  Bowers, Aircraft in Profile, 
  Doubleday, 1969.  

Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: WWII -- Why didn't Japan invade Hawaii?
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:54:41 GMT


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From rdh@sli.com (Robert D. Houk)
>  ... why the Japanese did not plan to take Hawaii 
>  after the Pearl Harbor raid.  The entire fleet and local airforce was 
>  destroyed, the islands lay helpless, why didn't they follow thru and remove
>  this obvious stretegic base from American hands...

Remember that the original strategic concept was a limited offensive:
strike hard to eliminate the most dangerous opposing forces, move quickly
to occupy areas of SE Asia supplying crucial materials (notably, Java's
oilfields), and then negotiate for peace from a position of strength.
They weren't planning world conquest, only a quick grab for resources,
to defeat the Allied embargoes imposed in support of China.  Hawaii was
far outside their primary area of interest and would have been difficult
to supply and hold.  Inflicting severe damage on the US fleet was vital,
to prevent immediate US interference, but the longer-term importance of
Hawaii as a base simply wasn't relevant:  the war was supposed to be
over before that would matter.

The people who planned the initial offensive -- notably Yamamoto --
understood that Japan could not win a long war against the much greater
industrial capability of the US.  The Pearl Harbor raid was meant to buy
time -- a year or so -- for the conquest and consolidation of SE Asia,
not to begin a prolonged military campaign against the US.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry