HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dshaffer@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Donald A Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Russian Anti-Satalite Weapon
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:28:37 GMT


From dshaffer@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Donald A Shaffer)


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


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

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

>Actually, the concept of anti-satellite weapons has been around a while.
>Does anyone know if any where ever developed and furthermore ever deployed?
>I don't know if the cost would be worth it, but the destruction of some
>of the satellites used by Communication and Positioning systems, not to 
>mention weather and intelligence gathering, might be quite desirable in a 
>large conflict.
   I do know that the russians have an actual working ASAT missile that they 
shot and destroyed some target sattelites.  Basically, it gets near the 
satellite and explodes itself, showereing the satelite with shrapnel.  I think
we have some mothballed somewhere.
  Tom Clancy's _Red_Storm_Rising_ showed them being used. Plus I think I 
remember reading it in "Air Force"  magazine, soviet almanac edition.



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: g89r4255@hippo.ru.ac.za (Lt Sajid Rahim)
Subject: Wanted info for Agusto-90 Submarines.
Organization: Rhodes University, Grahamstown, South Africa
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:55:39 GMT


From g89r4255@hippo.ru.ac.za (Lt Sajid Rahim)


Can anyone out there post the specifications for the french
Agusta-90 submarine.

Appreciate it very much.

Sincerely

Sajid

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
--   Sajid Rahim, Dept of Computer Science, Rhodes University,     --
--   Grahamstown, South Africa. Internet : g89r4255@hippo.ru.ac.za --
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (LIANG TIAN)
Subject: Re: : How good is the Mig-29 VS the F16/F18 ?
Organization: Australian Defence Force Academy, Canberra, Australia
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:31:27 GMT


From liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (LIANG TIAN)

>From ooi@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Jeffrey K Ooi)

>Since the German reunification The formally west german luftwaffe got
>it's hands on a 24-plane squadron of mig-29s and here is what they said:

>1) it flies as slowly as 160km/r(99mph) - the speed of a cloth covered Piper cub
  Is this normal flight or at some high AOA you see them do in airshows.
  BTW, what is the use of this? Not a flame, just curious.

>2) It's maximum speed is Mach 2.5 ( the f-16 : Mach 2 )  
  Max speed isn't terribly important nowadays. ACM takes place about
300-500 knots. Mach 2.5 is going to take AB and the -29 is already short
on range.

>3) It can withstand turning forces of 10-11g (american jets can on average take
>    only 9g before they lose engines )
  I think US a/c are limited by the computer flight control software. Even
if the -29 can take 10-11 Gs, can the piloty take it and still perform
effectively? 

>4) The Mig-29 can 'flip-up' in combat for a brief period, an angle of 80 degrees   to sight a target well above it's target window.
>5) The western planes have long range superiority but at dogfight level the
>  the planes are about equal
>6) The aircraft weighs about 14,515kg and needs only 305m of runway for takeoff
>   ( the f16 needs 366m )
>7) about cost? The American fire control computers are very expensive compared
>   to their russian counterparts...The Mig-29 uses a $50 device with a pair
>   of infra-red emitters that simply clamps onto a normal helmet.
>   The infra-red beams are reflected of mirrors mounted in the cockpit to           measure the pilot's head angle with surprisingly accurate precision - 
>   the pilot can slue his fire-control system 60 degrees just by looking at the    target.
>8) If the mig goes out of control, or the pilot becomes disoriented, all the 
>pilot has to do is hit a panic button   and the computer brings prompt, 
>automatic recovery.
  I think this is pretty standard for US a/c, especially for FBW, unstable
a/c like the -16.

>9) there are problems, however, The engines eat up so much fuel that the plane
>   can only remain on station less than 2 hours -without i/f refuelling - but
>   still a short time compared to western fighters.
		-18	-16	-29
		405	490	350	(nm)
  And the -29 can do inflight refuelling!
					(Aust Avivation Jun 1990)

>The Germans, however, are happy enough with the plane to buy a further 200
>of the planes and at about $25millon each plus spare parts and tech support
>is a great deal better that western planes. 

/***********************************************************/
Disclaimer: Above are my _personal_ thoughts and blabbing
	    and is not the view, policy, etc of any 
	    organisation[s] I am/was/will be in. 
Liang Tian Soon
liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au
/***********************************************************/


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>
Subject: This Week in WWII
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:51:03 GMT


From CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>

AFMC News Service 92-09-191

This week in World War II

     An Army Air Force combat chronology.

     Oct. 2, 1942 --  Thirty Eighth Air Force B-17 Flying
Fortresses bomb the Potez aircraft factory at Meaulte,
France.  Despite being escorted by 400 allied fighters,
German interceptors penetrate the bombers' formation.
However, B-17 pilots show their defensive ability by using
their 11.50 caliber machine guns.

     That same day a German submarine, a U-512, is sunk
off the French Guiana coast by aircraft from the 99th Bomb
Squadron..

     Oct. 3, 1942 -- B-24 Liberators, escorted by P-38
Lightnings and P-39 Airacobras, bomb and strafe Japanese-
occupied Kiska Harbor in the Aleutians.  A cargo ship and
the enemy camp are hit.  Six enemy float plane fighters
are shot down by American fighters.  The Japanese bomb the
U.S. airfield at Adak, but no damage results.

     Oct. 6, 1942 -- B-24s bomb the harbor of Bengasi,
Libya.  Antiaircraft fire is heavy and enemy fighters
attack the bomber formation over the target.  Two
Liberators are lost.

             Oct. 8, 1942 -- Trying to route Japanese
forces from New Guinea, 5th Air Force B-25 Mitchells bomb
enemy sites in the Buna area while A-20 Havocs strafe and
bomb the Buna-Kokoda Trail.  As a result, the Japanese
withdrawal across the Owen Stanley Mountain Range slows.


-- 
         
      // \\
    //     \\                    Air Force News Agency 
   |         |               Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, USA
   \\  {*}  //                   bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil  
   \  CMSgt  /      ___________________ /____________________________________
   \  Mike   /   
   \ Bergman /
     \     /
From: jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis)
Subject: specific info on "perry" class frigate wanted
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:49:49 GMT


From jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis)


	On the news in response to the recent accident in the "agean" and the 
hit of a turkish ship by 'sparrow' missile, archival footage was shown of
both a 'sparrow' launch and a 'standard' missile launch.
The second didn't belong in this news story, go figure the News services.

	Anyway the 'standard' launch was from a "perry" class frigate.

	In front of the single launcher (mk13 I think), there was a box-like
grey-painted platform with a white cylinder on top. Looked like an office
water-bottle painted white (like you would se on old TV series).
	At first I thought it was a CIWS Phalanx but after freezing the frame
(had videotaped news) I realized it was not.

	So what could it be? ECM equipment? New point defense system? Other?

	I would appreciate an answer from anyone who may know. 
						Thanks a lot,
								John D.




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: d89-jsp@nada.kth.se (Jan Sparrendahl)
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:50:23 GMT


From d89-jsp@nada.kth.se (Jan Sparrendahl)

|> In article <BvE5rp.2sy@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> tomas_e@LINK.Physchem.KTH.SE (Tomas Eriksson) writes:
|> >>... Since most of the subs are pretty small (around 30 meters or so) 
|> >>I don't imagine that they are nuclear.

In article <BvI785.MHF@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> ... it would have been
|> very difficult (space-based reactors are a poor comparison: They
|> only put out tens of kilowatts...

	Still the tought is interesting. USSR used cesium-generators 
	in light-houses. These were left unmanned and unsupervised
	for a long time and had been designed with little regard to
	safty. What about one of those in a sub?

	A DE+Sterling powered Sub can stay submerged for a long time.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: HDKP000 <HDKP@musicb.mcgill.CA>
Subject: Canadian Frigate Program
Organization: McGill University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:19:44 GMT


From HDKP000 <HDKP@musicb.mcgill.CA>


  I would like to know any information regarding the
City Class frigaes of the Canadian Armed Forces.
I am especially interested in tthe weepons systems and
ASW capabilities.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hakoskinen@tne01.tele.nokia.fi (Harri Koskinen)
Subject: Re: Brewster Buffalo info
Organization: Nokia Telecommunications.
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:37:18 GMT


From hakoskinen@tne01.tele.nokia.fi (Harri Koskinen)

>From: thumper@engin.umich.edu (Bob Topping)
>Subject:Brewster Buffalo info
>Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:37:20 GMT
>Message-ID:<BuKoM9.An0@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
>
>From thumper@engin.umich.edu (Bob Topping)
>
>
>I'm looking for information relating to that most under rated of World
>War II fighter aircraft, the Brewster Buffalo  :-{)
>
>General sources, especially with pictures, would be the best, but all
>info is welcome.  
>
>Also, to questions on the same topic:
>	 
>	1:  Are there any Buffaloes still in existance, flying or not?
>
>	2:  Is it true that this was the only a/c to have seen active
>		service on both sides of the war?  (Finland had some)
>
The information below is mainly from a Finnish book 'History of the
Finnish Air Force, part one: Brewster B-239 and Humu'. The book
was published in 1970 with a second issue in 1975 so I guess it
is not available any longer. The text is in Finnish with a short
summary in English.

When Finland was attacked by the Soviet Union in late November
in 1939 the purchase of new aircraft was commenced at once and
early next year these fighters started to arrive. Among them 44
Brewster B-239's, bought from USA in December as "obsolete" war
material. They arrived too late to see action in the Winter War
which ended March 13, 1940.

Brewsters took part into the Continuation War against the Soviet
Union in 1941-44 and against German troops in northern Finland
in 1944-45. A total of 477 aerial victories against the Soviets
were scored, the best pilot of the type was captain Hans Wind
with 38 and a half victories. 19 Brewsters were lost in combat
against the Soviet Union and four were shot down by German anti-
aircraft artillery in northern Finland.

In 1942 plans were made to build Brewsters in Finland. The aircraft
was called 'Humu'. As no original wings were available a wooden
one was made. The aircraft was powered by a Soviet M-63 war booty
engine. The fuel tanks were placed in the frame, the original
Brewsters had wing tanks. Trials were made in 1943 with a modified
Brewster that crashed and in 1944 with one prototype. 'Humu'
went never into serial production.

Unfortunately only one Brewster has been preserved in Finland.
It is the prototype of 'Humu' and it is in the aviation museum
at Jyvaskyla airport in central Finland.

-----        
Harri Koskinen
hakoskinen@tnclus.tele.nokia.fi

freelance aviation writer
Siivet magazine
Finland

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: sdr57@cas.org (Stan Roberts)
Subject: corrected formula
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:42:45 GMT


From sdr57@cas.org (Stan Roberts)

There was a typo in the formula in an article I just sent.
i-Pr was written as i-PR
If possible, could you replace the message with the corrected
version below?
Thank you.


In article <BvG01p.1JH@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Tom Oates) writes:
>
>From th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Tom Oates)
>
>Several people have emailed me to ask what happened at Sidi Barani.
>
I believe there was a book written about this.
The author's name escapes me but I think the title
was "Incident at Bari" or some such.

>
>Piece of trivia: the most powerful poison gas in the world is called
>VX and has a chemical formula as long as your arm. It is a 'persistent'
>nerve agent. VX was invented by the United Kingdom in 1952, the same year
>the UK detonated its first atomic bomb at the Monte Bello islands. Both
>the USA and the ex-USSR hold stocks of VX, though these are currently being
>being reduced.
>
>--
>****************************************************************************
>* Tom Oates (Bristol Poly, England)  * DISCLAIMER:I speak only for myself. *
>* JANET: th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk * PGP 2.0 Key available upon request. *
>****************************************************************************
>
To be a bit of a nitpicker:

VX is not a gas - under normal conditions it is disseminated
as an aerosol.
It is also not the most powerful poison - although it
is the most powerful nerve agent held in *large* stocks
for military use. (Those interested in toxicities
should see T. W. Sawyer, et al in Fundam. Appl.
Toxicol. 17(1) pages 208 et seq.). Finally, it
has a very short formula:

		  C11 H26 N O2 P S

which can be lengthened somewhat when expressed in terms of the
functional groups:

			 OCH2CH3    (i-Pr is the standard shorthand
			 |           for isopropyl - 3 C atoms and
      (i-Pr)2N-CH2-CH2-S-P-CH3       associated hydrogens, || is
			||           intended to represent a double
			 O           bond between the P and the O -
				     it is hard to draw with ascii)


It does have a long proper name:
methylphosphonothioic acid S-[2-[bis(1-methylethyl)amino]ethyl]
O-ethyl ester

(and some slightly shorter less proper names:
O-Ethyl S-(2-diisopropylaminoethyl) methylphosphonothioate,
O-Ethyl S-(2-diisopropylaminoethyl) methylthiophosphonate,
O-Ethyl S-diisopropylaminoethyl methylphosphonothioate,
S-2-Diisopropylaminoethyl O-ethyl methylphosphonothioate, and
S-[2-(Diisopropylamino)ethyl] O-ethyl methylphosphonothiolate)

All of the above is from open sources.

******************************************************************************
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: jwilson@hartree.cs.Colorado.EDU (John Wilson)
Subject: Re: TOP 5 ARMED FORCES OF THE WORLD 
Summary: Depends on criteria
Keywords: n
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:27:39 GMT


From jwilson@hartree.cs.Colorado.EDU (John Wilson)


I do not have any statistics handy, but I will give some examples.

One list of sizes of armies had as its top five (this is not in order)

China, Vietnam, Soviet Union, US Army, US Marine Corps.

Another example had for airforces all the various air arms broken down
separately.  The Soviet Union had I think Air defense, Frontal Aviation,
Strategic Aviation and Naval Aviation (I thought there were five).
In this listing the largest airforce was the US army.  Again I do not
remember the ranking but all US services were in the top ten at least.

I hope you see my point.

John Wilson






Newsgroups: sci.military
From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Subject: Re: New Carrier Plan
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:33:18 GMT


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

gawne@stsci.edu writes:



I wrote ...
>> Further, the Marines have not gone ashore with
>> AirForce help in my lifetime (or the lifetime of these planes).

gawne@stsci.edu wrote ...
>What !?!???  Have you heard of Graneda? Panama? Kuwait???  In all cases
>there was an Air Force Air Component Commander who was issuing an Air
>Tasking Order that included USMC assets.

I thought that there were air force planes involved in Graneda.  If
I'm wrong, I'm sorry.  As for Panama, we already had troups, (and air
bases) there, didn't we?

Now, about Kuwait.  I wrote that the marines always had air force
help.  Now I'm *quite* sure that the air force flew tens of thousands
of missions during that war, and that the navy flew thousands more.
The marine-air-force was at best a small component of the total air
power involved.

My point is that whenever the marines need air support, there are
always available air assets of the air force or naval carriers to
provide it.  That the marine corps has it's own air force seems a
needless duplication of function.  In this day and age, every dollar
wasted is a dollar less spent on the important things.

Let me turn the question around.  Given that something needs to be

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: leem@jpl-devvax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Lee Mellinger)
Subject: Re: View at Fressno/Van Neuys
Organization: Jet Propulsion Laboratory (NASA)
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:38:48 GMT


From leem@jpl-devvax.Jpl.Nasa.Gov (Lee Mellinger)

In article <BvAs6I.A53@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> GORDON@UKCEVM1.VNET.IBM.COM (Gordon C Smith, IBM Greenford, UK.) writes:
:
:From GORDON@UKCEVM1.VNET.IBM.COM (Gordon C Smith, IBM Greenford, UK.)
:
: I am taking a short trip to California next month and wonder if anyone
:can tell me... Is it possible to view/photograph any of the military
:air activity at Fresno and/or Van Neuys (sp?)? Are there any good spots
:to view the ramp or the approach at these fields?
:Cheers, Gordon

I cannot speak for Fresno, but the only military activity at Van Nuys
Airport WAS the 146th Air Lift Wing of the California Air National
Guard.  Unfortunately they moved to Camarillo (about 50 miles to the
West) last year.  That is now the closest military air activity to Van
Nuys. BTW, the operate C-130's.

Lee

"Mit Pulver und Blei, die Gedanken sind frei."

|Lee F. Mellinger                 Caltech/Jet Propulsion Laboratory - NASA
|4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109 818/354-1163  FTS 792-1163     
|leem@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV
:



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: optima!trujillo@cs.arizona.edu (Clorinda Trujillo)
Subject: Re: AFROTC question
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:34:02 GMT


From optima!trujillo@cs.arizona.edu (Clorinda Trujillo)


>From article <BvE5zB.32M@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, by yuna@athena.mit.edu (Yuna Huh):
> 
> From yuna@athena.mit.edu (Yuna Huh)
> 
> 	I'm a freshman in AFROTC.  I have 20/800 vision, my major has absolutely
> nothing to do with anything technical, and I'm female to boot.  Do I stand *any*
> chance of being let near a plane?
> 
> Yuna Huh

I am a senior in AFROTC.  Being female and having a major having nothing to do
with anything technical doesn't matter (we had a female get a pilot slot two
years ago and the pilot candidate from my class is majoring in marketing).
However, your vision guarantees you will not get a pilot slot.  I am female
and have outstanding pilot scores in the AFOQT.  However, my vision is
20/400+ and therefore I am not even considered for a pilot slot.  If you
want to do something else with planes, your vision should not be a problem.
However, you cannot pilot or navigate a plane.

There are a lot of other options/career fields available to you in the
Air Force.  Don't limit yourself to just looking at being a pilot.

Clorinda Trujillo

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rdh@sli.com (Robert D. Houk)
Subject:  WWII -- Why didn't Japan invade Hawaii?
Organization: Software Leverage, Inc. Arlington, Ma
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:55:58 GMT


From rdh@sli.com (Robert D. Houk)

I came across this [excerpt] recently whilst perusing some old conferencing
material. Can anyone out there provide any substantiation/refutation? An
actual pointer to "source" material would be greatly welcome!

					-RDH

   ... I have heard of one story which would qualify, I just can't 
   back it up with specific references though I have been (on a part-time 
   basis) trying to find the original reference for about a month now.  My 
   understanding is that some professional journal for the US Navy ran a 
   short article some years back which cited interviews that the Navy 
   conducted with the Japanese leadership right after WWII.  The purpose of 
   the interviews was to determine the "other side of the story".

   One of the questions asked was 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 (I think that most people 
   would admit that if Japan HAD taken Hawaii, the outcome of the Pacific war 
   might have been somewhat different).  The Japanese answered that the reason 
   they didn't invade was that they didn't think they could hold the islands 
   once they "took 'em".  They stated explicitly that they knew they could 
   beat the army, but because so many civilians had privately held arms, they 
   didn't believe they could handle the GW that would erupt.  This opinion they
   said was borne out in the Phillipines where there WAS significant gun 
   control and (for the most part) a disarmed populace, yet where the Japanese 
   still had a very difficult time with the GW that developed after 
   occupation.