HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:30:36 GMT


From megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)

In article <Bu0Co2.5L2@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young) writes:
>From youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)
>   confirmed (or not confirmed):  I heard the Navy was going to standardize on
>   F/A-18s for the carriers.  This would mean the F-14 *and* A-6 would go away.

They were going to F/A-18s and A-12s. But we all know about the A-12, and the
Advanced Air-to-air Missile was cancelled, and that was the basis for using the
-18 to replace the 14 in the fleet air defence role. 

This is all based on the -18E/F versions, which are almost totally new....

20% larger wing, 2 new pylons, bigger engines, square ramp inlets, new radar,
stretched body (I've heard 20-25% bigger) for more fuel tanks. So a longer
range, AIM-120 as standard weapons....

All in all it sounds like a very new aircraft. But nothing like the Tomcat
unfortunately. It looks like the Tomcat will be doing the defense role for
a while, unless they either create a new aircraft to carry the Phoenix or
a new missle for the Hornet.

Of course since the line has closed now we only have those aircraft still in
service, hopefully all of them will be upgraded.

I'm just waiting to see how the 18E/F works out.

One of the major resons the Tomcat 2000 was rejected was that the Marines
also need to operate the new aircraft and the Tomcat is too big and
complicated for their needs. Plus they operate the Hornets already.

What ever happened to the AV-8 with plenum chamber burning for Mach flight.
Last I read it was undergoing gas ingesting tests, but that was years ago.

###############################################################################
# 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: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: In-flight refueling in WWII
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:19:37 GMT


From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)

In article <BuDEy1.FL9@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Al Crawford <awrc@dcs.ed.ac.uk> writes:

|With a large 4-engined bomber like the Lincoln, the likelihood of the
|drogue getting caught in the propellors really isn't that much higher than
|the chances of the drogue getting sucked into a jet intake.

Was this the followon to the Lancaster? How big was it? Did it 
use Griffons (the logical successor to the Merlin) or something
like the Sabre?

|On the subject of these bomber missions (I seem to recall the unit charged
|with this was known as Tiger Force but I'm quite possibly utterly wrong)
|can anyone remember just what they were going to do about fighter escorts? I
|think the Tempest was to be used but I'm not sure.

I did hear of a mission with B-29s (?) flown from India. The bombers 
were fueled to the point where they had to fly for miles in at very
low altitude, perhaps even in ground effect until they lost enough 
weight to climb to altitude...

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Re: A-4 Skyhawk and F-4 Phantom, last produced in ?
Summary: A-4M and F-4EJ
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:10:55 GMT


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

In article <BuKo4n.9xB@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw) writes:
> 
> From toby@milton.u.washington.edu (Toby Bradshaw)
> 
> When did M-D produced the last of these two aircraft, or are either
> of them still in production?  
> 

The last Skyhawk off the production line was an A-4M for the US Marine
Corps  which  was  delivered  in  1979.  The Skyhawk was in continuous
production from 1954 to 1979, which means that it had a production run
of twenty-five years.  This must be some sort of record for a military
aircraft.

The Phantom was in production for almost as long.  The  first  Phantom
flew  in  1958.  The last Phantom to be manufactured was a Mitsubishi-
built F-4EJ for the JASDF,  which  was delivered  on May 20,  1981.  I
believe that the last Phantom off the M-D production line was an RF-4E
which was delivered  to either  the Greek  or the Turkish Air Force in
1978.   

Sources:

  McDonnell Douglas  Aircraft  Since  1920  (Vols  I  and  II),   Rene
  Francillon, Naval Institute Press, 1990.

Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548
From: barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Chinese fighters gain mid-air refuelli
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:07:40 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.


From barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)

>anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes:
>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>China Obtains Technology for Aerial Refueling of Jets ............... 54
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

  What is so special with the aerial refueling technology?

  I understand that it gives a lot of flexibility in the design of the
operations and allows for much greater range, so make some operations
possible now. But, you can buy this technology from Israel/US/UK
without too much problems. Or not?

  The FACH (Chilean Air Force) just acquired this technology from Israel
(Conversion of ex-civil Boeing planes: 727 and 707) and is modifying
all of the Mirage-50C, F-5E and A-37 with in-flight refueling probes.

  The FACH is also believed to have modified, at least, one 707 to use
the Israel Falcon system, which is a sort of AWACS.  Does someone have
some data on the capacities of the Falcon system?

  Thanks in advance.

  Speaking for himself.

  Juan Carlos
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
Subject: Japanese F-15 upgrade
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:01:40 GMT


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

The Japanese will modify their F-15:s to carry 6 Sparrows + 6
Sidewinders. Anyone know how? Putting Sparrows on the wing
stations instead of tanks should be easy, and there are outer
wing station, but they are now only for ECM pods aren't they, but
they could be modified to take Sidewinders, couldn't they?

Or what do you think of the Sea Harrier FRS.2 approach, putting
missiles on the tanks?
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gellasch@emunix.emich.edu (Chris Gellasch)
Subject: Re: USA Timberwolves Division
Organization: Eastern Michigan University
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:33:18 GMT


From gellasch@emunix.emich.edu (Chris Gellasch)

In article <BtyIKy.90L@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> keith@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Keith Taylor) writes:
>
>From keith@hpcvlx.cv.hp.com (Keith Taylor)
>
>The "Timberwolf" division trained at Camp Adair, just north of here in
>Corvallis, Oregon. There's a sign at the entrance to the Camp Adair 
>site that talks about the divisions that trained there and where they 
>served in WW II. The other divisions were nicknamed "Deadeye" and 
>"Trailblazer." I don't remember much beyond that, the sign goes
>by too fast.  :-)
>
>Keith M. Taylor
>

The "Trailblazer" division is the 70th INF (TNG) which is now a reserve
training division out of Livonia, MI.  I was in the unit as a cadet.
I don't remember the entire history but the division was formed in Oregon 
and after WWII became a training unit.  In case you are courious, the 70th
will take over the Infantry School at Ft. Benning during full mobilization.


-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Gellasch                                        gellasch@emunix.emich.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragmen
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:54:51 GMT


From barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)

>From dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)
>
>The primary reason for the current limits on maximum tank weights are
>not technology limitations. Very simply, tanks, like other vehicles, move
>best by road, and neither European nor American roads will support loads
>greater than about 90 tonnes. In fact, most culverts and bridges in Germany
>are limited to 60 tonnes for tracked vehicles (at least, that's the most
>common figure I saw on the abahn signs).
>

  I completely agree on this. Europe is a place where most of the bridges
are old. I mean old. It is not uncommon for a normal small road to still
use a bridge built by the Romans.

  During a war you do not expect the big bridges to exist for a very long
time, so if you want to move, you have either to swim or to be light
enought to use all of the small bridges.

  This was a main requirement during the design of the AMX-30 and explain
its weight.

  It is also the reason why you can see some very nice concrete bridges
that can manage up to 40 tons being built for dirt roads in the far
south of Chile, near Argentina. The idea is, you build the bridges
today, just in case, and when the civilian traffic is big enough, you
pour asphalt on top of the dirt.

  Speaking for himself,

  Juan Carlos

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Subject: Re: The Luftwaffe
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:09:07 GMT


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

In article <BuDF4v.Ftu@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie) writes:

> Put jets into combat in 1943, and there is no invasion, Germany can devote
> much more of its resources into the Eastern front, London is radioactive
> vapor by 1946, and we're all speaking German by now.

Interesting conjecture, but not what some of the top German pilots of
the day thought and still think.  Adolf Galland, for one, is convinced
that the introduction of the Me 262 would only have prolonged the war,
but that by 1943, the outcome was inevitable.  Also, the German efforts
to gain nuclear technology were not very successfull.  At the end of
the war, it was found that the Germans were nowhere near producing a
bomb and that they hadn't been working very hard at it.  Many of the
scientists that could have helped had either left Germany in the 30's
or had been imprisoned as Jews.

Corky Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago:
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:27:54 GMT


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

Friday, 4 September, 1942

Australian forces press the Japanese at Milne Bay.  Defending a shrinking
beachhead, the Japanese evacuate their wounded by sea.

Japanese troops recapture Lanchi, China.

The USSR launches bomber strikes against Budapest, Breslau, and Vienna.
The Royal Air Force hits Bremen, and American bombers attack Le Havre.

Two American fast transports, the Little and Gregory, encounter the
Japanese 4th Destroyer Flotilla off Lunga Point.  Bother APD's are sunk.

Detailed information about the characteristics of the Japanese Zero fighter
are issued to US pilots in the Pacific.   The information has been obtained
by studying a Zero which crash-landed almost intact in the Aleutians.

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

"For no soldiers or sailors, in any of our forces today, would so willingly
endure the rigors of battle if they thought that in another twenty years
their own sons would be fighting still another war on distant deserts or
seas or in far-away jungles or skies." - Franklin Roosevelt
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Autofocus and the Stealth
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:27:16 GMT


From shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)

On Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:33:16 GMT, mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) said:

>From article <BuBLxI.GtA@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, by megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23):
> Standard Fly-By-Wire really. The F-16 couldn't stay in the air without it's
> computers, it's dynamically unstable.

y> That may be true for the F-16XL, but AFAIK it is not true for the
y> standard F-16.  Fly-by-wire does not imply instability.

All F-16s are statically unstable.  GD is quite proud of this.  The
center of pressure is forward of the center of gravity by design.
This gives increased maneuverability, which is desirable in a fighter.

This instability is why the F-16 has a hydrazine-powered emergency
power unit--see my posting on this topic elsewhere in this group.

You are correct about fly-by-wire not implying instability--the F-8
Digital Fly-By-Wire aircraft was resoundingly stable and entirely
fly-by-wire (no conventional backup).  Interestingly enough, NASA's
decision to build the F-8 DFBW without conventional backup was the
deciding factor in GD's making the F-16 fbw (and, hence, unstable).

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Nigel.Allen@lambada.oit.unc.edu
Subject: Military Telecom/Signals Organizations
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:49:27 GMT


From Nigel.Allen@lambada.oit.unc.edu

Please pass this message on to anyone else in your organization who should
see it. 

Gale Research Inc. is now compiling a revised edition of its
{Telecommunications Directory}. While it primarily lists civilian
telecommunications organizations, I suspect it would be happy to 
include listings for military telecom networks, services and associations
in its directory.

If you would like your telecommunications-related company, association,
government agency or periodical to be listed free of charge in the
{Telecommunications Directory}, contact:
 Mr. John Krol, Editor,
 {Telecommunications Directory},
 Gale Research Inc.,
 835 Penobscot Building,
 Detroit, Michigan 48226-4094, U.S.A.
 telephone 800-347-4253  or (313) 961-2242,
 fax (313) 961-6815
and ask him to send you (or someone else in your organization) a
questionnaire for the directory.

The previous edition was published in 1991. Your local public or
university library may have a copy.

Here is the questionnaire that you can fill in and return to the above
address (not to me), together with any literature that you think the
editors might find helpful:

 Organization name:__
 Address:__
 Specific system or service:__
 Name of head of system or service:__
 Person's job title:___
 Phone number:___
 Year founded:____
 Staff (indicate number in each category:
 __ Total (__ management; __ technical;  __ sales & marketing; 
 __ clerical; __ other)
 Related Organizations and Their Specific Affiliation:__
 General Description:__
 Geographic Areas Served: __
 Rate Structure: (if unable to supply specific charges, please provide a
general rate structure)__
 Publications/Documentation:___
 Clientele/Availability: (Please list primary types of clients, any
limitations or restrictions)___
 Key Features Summary:___
 Contact Person: ___
 Name and title of person completing questionnaire:___
 Telephone number:___
 Toll-free telephone number:___
 Fax: ____
 Telex: ____
 Electronic mail address (include system name(s) and your code or address)___


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: Use of WWII Era Small Arms In Yugoslavia
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:59:45 GMT


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au

In article <Bu9I0p.Gz4@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, gelwasser@scivax.stsci.edu writes:
> 
> From gelwasser@scivax.stsci.edu
> 

> My Question is this : Are the MP-40'S, MG34 and 42 machine guns war surplus
>  or did the former Yugoslavian Federal Government take up production of
>  these designs after WWII? Or have they been imported from else where in
> the Balkens or central Europe ?

The Yugoslav army has a large inventory of German WW@ weapons.  Ian Hogg in his 
book "small arms of WW2" uses many current photo's of the Yugoslav army to show
the Geran equipment.

> On the machine guns I might be mistaken if what I thought was
> a 1944 vintage MG34 turned out to be a post war German/NATO M 3.

The M3 is based on the German MG43, a variant of the MG34.  They are very
closely related with the necesary mods for calibre, moderm optics, better
barrelchangung technique and a few other things that meet the needs of modern
warfare.


source again is Ian Hogg.


regs

Rob


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: light aircraft in strike role
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:49:20 GMT


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

In article <Bu9Gz4.E1t@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>In article <BtnHD9.1t9@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America) writes:
>>Maybe also for night arrasment missions (do not let 'em sleep).
>
>The Americans did this to Japanese air bases during WW2.. Send a 
>bomber at night to drop _one_ bomb once every hour or so..

I think you have this backwards. The Japanese did this to American
bases. If you have a reference for American bombers doing this to
Japanese bases, I'd be interested in seeing it. Generally the 
Americans didn't mount raids unless they expected to do substantial
damage.

Gary
From: Daniel.Abernethy@EBay.Sun.COM (Daniel Abernethy)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: 435th APS, 4th MAPS
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:11:35 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.


From Daniel.Abernethy@EBay.Sun.COM (Daniel Abernethy)

Does anyone know what happened to these units, I was a part of both of
them. 

Now with all the Air Mobility ops going on recently I have heard neither
hide nor hair of the units, wha' happended???

They were based at Rhien Main AB Frankfurt, FRG.  I was there from '84-86.
From: jvz@pt.com (John Zambito)
Subject: jet output cross section
Organization: Performance Technologies, Incorporated
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:28:49 GMT


From jvz@pt.com (John Zambito)

I've noticed that the geometry of a jet's output can be 
changed. I assume that you'd want it wide open on take-off
to get the biggest push and shut down at high speed to 
get the fastest thrust speed. Is this correct? Does the
pilot have explicit control of this feature?

-- 
__
John Zambito, Performance Technologies Incorporated	jvz@pt.com
315 Science Parkway, Rochester, New York 14620    uupsi!ptsys1!jvz

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
Subject: Misc
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:20:01 GMT


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

Ferranti GEC has teamed with Sukhoi, so Su-35 is shown with a
TIALD pod at Farnborough.

Lockheed has revealed its C-130H in Senior Scout guise. This
aircraft can carry _clip-on_ antennae on the tail, sponson
deflector panels, parachute doors and main landing gear doors.
The electronic mission capsule for 4-12 operators is rolled on.
Equipping it takes 12 h.

NobelTech has a version of the BOL chaff dispenser (normal
version mounted on missile launch rail, without hindering missile
carriage) that can be scabbed on elsewhere on an aircraft, if you
have no launch rail available.
Length 206 cm, heigth 13 cm, width 10 cm. In front, an electric
motor, then a springloaded plunger, then about 30 packages,
besides them two belt drives, at the rear toothed wheels to break
the packages.

Ericsson has three platform options for its Erieye
AEW/battlefield surveillance radar: Metro III, Saab 340, Fokker
50; but Bell-Boing has completed windtunnel tests of a swing-down
mounting for the V-22. A Saab 340 will have an endurance of 7 h
with underwing tanks.

Lockheed is investigating a rocket-boosted bomb to replace the
GBU-28, which is rather large and heavy. This bomb will weigh
about 1400 kg, and be small enough to be carried internally on
B-2:s and F-117:s.
[Flight International 16-22 Sept 1992]
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se
 "When a woman thinks quickly, it is called intuition." -- Barbro Alving
From: sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Kevlar wet/dry effectivness ref. request
Date: 4 Sep 92 16:29:03 GMT
Organization: Utah State University


From sl9b4@cc.usu.edu (Deep Six)

In article <BtyIK0.8w7@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, (Jake Hodgson) writes:

>     Specifically, I am looking for a hard reference (no fof or 'i heard's'
>    Please) which outlines the difference in the effectivness of Kevlar
>    (or other aramid) ballistic vests when the vest is dry or wet.

I'd be happy to see followups to this posted, and I wouldn't mind hearing
about the fof's and `I heards,' too.

Okay,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chadd VanZanten SL9B4@CC.USU.EDU + ``Charlie don't surf!'' --Big Duke in 
Francis Coppala's Apocolypse Now
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:36:53 GMT


From dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)

In article <Bu2BAq.115@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Zych) writes:

>Basically, an aircraft can carry a much larger warhead than a tank cannon shell.
>Therefore, if you were to try to protect the tank from this larger warhead on
>top (and front and sides and rear, as well; aircraft can attack from any
>aspect), you would end up with an extremly heavy tank that would probably need
>a nuclear reactor to provide enough power to move it....

While the rest of the original posting is basically correct (ie. tank
designers have to compromise somewhere), there is *lots* of room for
increases in armour. Modern MBTs generally weigh between 45 and 65 tons.
Germany designed one monster during WWII which weighed 128 tons (der
Maus??). About all you can say on its ability is that it *did* move
under its own power. It never made production. But it moved with 1945
era engines (if I remember correctly, they used a U-boat diesel).

If you're willing to make sacrifices in top speed, you can add plenty of
armour.

The primary reason for the current limits on maximum tank weights are
not technology limitations. Very simply, tanks, like other vehicles, move
best by road, and neither European nor American roads will support loads
greater than about 90 tonnes. In fact, most culverts and bridges in Germany
are limited to 60 tonnes for tracked vehicles (at least, that's the most
common figure I saw on the abahn signs).

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | I had been told that the best defense is a good
George Patterson -  | offense, so I made up my mind early in life to
                    | become as offensive as possible.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military