HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Subject: Soviet/Russian designations (Was: Re: NATO Code Names for Soviet Aircraft)
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
X-Alt.reply-Address: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk
Date: Thu, 10 Dec 1992 18:36:09 GMT

Me, I'm more interested in the original designations. So if anyone
can correct/add to this list, I'd be grateful:
(From "Ballistic missiles" it's got very very little to do with aviation.)

SURFACE-TO-AIR MISSILES
Strela (SA-7)
Igla (SA-16)

ANTI-TANK MISSILES
Maljutka (AT-3 Sagger)
Falanga (AT-4 Fagot)
Vikhr (AT-9 Whirlwind) 16 carried by Su-25T

AIR-TO-AIR MISSILES
R-3S (Atoll) IR version
K-13 (Atoll) Radar version
R-33 (AA-9 Amos)
R-60 (AA-8 Aphid)
R-27 (AA-10 Alamo)
R-27RE  extended range version             170 km
R-73 (AA-11 Archer)
AAM-AE          3,6 m x 0,2 m   175 kg     100 km    lattice rudders

AIR-TO-GROUND MISSILES
      (AS-7 Kerry)
Ch-25ML (AS-12 Kegler) laser-guided   (*)
Ch-25MP                anti-radar   320 kg  40 km
Ch-29T (AS-14 Kedge) TV-guided
Ch-29L   - '' -      laser-guided
Ch-31P (AS-17) ramjet anti-radar    600 kg  100 km  90 kg warhead
Ch-35 (SS-N-25?) turbojet 130 km anti-ship, air- ship- groundlaunched
Ch-58 (AS-11 Kilter) anti-radar
Ch-59 (AS-13 Kingpost) TV-guided stand off
RKV-500B (AS-16 Kickback)

BALLISTIC MISSILES
R-17 (Scud)
RS-10 (SS-11) single warhead
RS-12 (SS-12) single warhead
RS-12M (SS-25) truck-launched
RS-16 (SS-17) four warheads
RS-18 (SS-19)
RS-20 (SS-18) ten 1 MT warheads
RS-22 (SS-24)
RS-24 ten warheads, rail mobile

STRATEGIC SEA LAUNCHED BALLISTIC MISSILES
RSM-52 on ("Typhoon") subs, 20 ten-warhead
RSM-54 on Delphin subs, 16 four-warhead

SUBMARINES
Murena (Delta I)
Kalmar (Delta III)
Delphin (Delta IV)
Navaga (Yankee)

* Note: It's "Ch" (or "Kh") and not "X", which is how the
Kyrillic character _looks_, and it is evident from the signs at
the Dubai '91 show that Latin characters were not used for
designations.

--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  
 A weapon is a device for making your enemy change his mind.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)
Subject: Re: "Fake" MiGs (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
Organization: University of Texas at San Antonio
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 23:33:15 GMT

In article <Bz9s2v.L4u@news.cs.andrews.edu> maierj@edmund.cs.andrews.edu (Joey Maier) writes:
  I admit that I'm not a military type and that I
>don't have any 'inside information'  but I am a well read aviation buff.
>I could be wrong, but I think that the T-38 is an F-5 DERIVITIVE(sp?),
>which would mean that we are picking semantics here.
>
> The point, IMHO, is that a very cool plane, one that is often overlook
>because of more high profile military aircraft, is still with us, and it
>is still earning its keep.
>
>Joey
>

Other way around, Joey.  The F-5 sprung from the loins of the T-38, which
entered operational service in the Air Training Command in 1961.

*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
              |               | "The problem with the modified trainer aircraft
             /O\              |  in the fighter role is that it has neither the
   \_______[|(.)|]_______/    |  reputation to discourage a conflict nor the
     o   ++   O   ++   o      |  capability to win one."
  thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu         - Anonymous, USAF Fighter Weapons Center
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: mtanner@gmuvax2.gmu.edu (Michael C. Tanner)
Subject: Re: Aerobatic maunevers - 12/7
Organization: George Mason University, Fairfax, Virginia, USA
Date: 18 Dec 92 13:47:44

   From: thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes)

   CUBAN 8:       Immelmann taken a bit further.  Procedure is like a loop until
                  reaching 45 degrees nose down on the back side. Then opposite
                  rudder and roll to finish on reciprocal heading.

In my limited, and civilian, experience, this would be called a "Half-Cuban
8".  A full Cuban puts two of these back-to-back so the aircraft flies through
a vertical figure-8 on it's side.

-- mike
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Subject: Re: Bf 109 (was Ejection seats/capsules)
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 01:58:48 GMT

Re: Joseph Baugher's article about the Czech-built Avia S-199 version
of the Bf-109 flown by the Israelis

- thanks for the info!  The S-199 sounds like it was a sorry excuse for
a fighter, a poor postscript to the story of an amazing aircraft.

As great as the Bf-109 was, I've always wondered what all the reasons
were that the FW-190 did not eventually replace it to a much greater
degree.  Most of the great aces such as Hartmann flew the 109 exclusively.
(Toliver & Constables book, The Blond Night of Germany, is a good read {I
actually have a German translation called Holt Hartmann vom Himmel! or "Get
Hartmann out of the Sky"... the sentiments of his opponents, no doubt}).

In its later versions the FW-190 (Ta-152) was probably the best all-round
German fighter.  Kurt Tank is said to have easily shot down two P-51D's 
that attacked him during a test flight (he was the chief designer).  An
interesting aside about Tank - in the sixties he was in India consulting
on the indigenous design for the supersonic Hindustan Aircraft Industries
Marut fighter (Hf-24, I believe).  Development continued into the seventies,
with better engines being considered, but by then it was a dated design.
I don't know much about its service history.

I expect that some of the reasons for the 109's longevity were political
and due to the large established manufacturing base.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin 	      PP-ASEL, PP-G		zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com
just another spaced rocket scientist at    Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: white@watsci.UWaterloo.ca (Brad White)
Subject: Gulf War Losses
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Fri, 18 Dec 1992 19:05:38 GMT

Hello,
I was watching a movie last night about the Tornado jet, and they mentioned
its role in the gulf war.  They said the tragically 5 were lost, but mostly
due to accidents.  Does anyone know of the details?
Also, does anyone know how many planes were lost, why, and by whom in the
war?
Thanks
Brad
From: zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Do-335 Pfeil (was Re: Ejection seats/capsules)
Date: 11 Dec 92 21:01:21 GMT
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group

In article <6071@sumax.seattleu.edu>, davidy@sumax.seattleu.edu (Stimpson J. Cat) writes:
|> 	It's the same Do-335. I believe there is only one left, the one the
|> U.S. brought back for testing after WWII, #102. This plane did belong to
|> the National Air & Space museum collection. Around 1976 or therabouts
|> the Do-335 was loaned by the U.S. to West Germany, where it was restored
|> by the Dornier firm itself, and then displayed in Germany. I believe the loan
|> period has expired and it has been returned to the U.S., and I guess is now
|> stored at the Silver Hill facility.
|> 
|> 				David L. Yee
|> 			email to:davidy@sumax.seattleu.edu

That explains why I saw it at the Deutsches Museum in '80, and
'84 and why it was not there in '90.  I guess that if it is the only one
left we're not likely to see it in the air again... a pity.  Ahhh, to be
insanely wealthy so that one could build accurate replicas of such birds...
(hey, Ross, d'ya like airplanes... they're more fun than being prez!? :-)  )

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Corvin 	      PP-ASEL, PP-G		zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com
just another spaced rocket scientist at    Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
===============    My views, not Martin Marietta's   ========================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: larsr@control.lth.se (Lars Rundqwist)
Subject: Re: SAAB J 21 (R) and J 29 "Flying Barrel"
Originator: larsr@bellman
Organization: Saab Military Aircraft Division, S-581 88 Linkoping, Sweden
	<ByrqAt.HAw@cantua.canterbury.ac.nz> <1992Dec7.214151.2827@den.mmc.com>
	<1992Dec8.070307.8200@julian.uwo.ca>
	<1992Dec9.010737.17315@den.mmc.com> <urf.723883624@sw2001>
	<29437@castle.ed.ac.uk> <urf.724085737@sw2001>
	<1992Dec15.020939.20017@den.mmc.com>
Date: 17 Dec 92 17:26:35

>>>>> On Tue, 15 Dec 1992 02:09:39 GMT, zwork@starfighter.den.mmc.com (Michael Corvin) said:



Michael> When, where and by whom was the J 29 used in combat?  

1960 (approx), in Congo (now Zaire?), by Swedish pilot's under UN
command. 

Michael> I think that the SAAB Lansen (JS 32?) was the most handsome of SAAB's products,
Michael> and very good aircraft also.  It looks sort of like a big brother to the
Michael> T-33 (which I think has a classic shape).

The Saab Lansen is designated A32, A is for 'Attack', as in e.g. A-10.
The J in J29 is for 'Jakt' corresponding to F in e.g. F-16.

Lars Rundqwist
Saab Military Aircraft
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: Snatiy check... err, Sanity check :-) :
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 92 13:30:38 GMT


colangel@erin.JSC.NASA.GOV (Michael Colangelo/MDSSC) writes:
 >To the person who works at NASA Dryden: Your ranting and raving and claiming
 >you're an expert because you work at a NASA facility looks bad.  I work at 
 >NASA JSC and don't appreciate your using the NASA title to feed your ego.

Well, as I recall, the "claiming" was based on xx years of direct experience
in the field...  NOT simply "working at NASA".  It made sense to me at least.
If you thought it had to do with "titles", then maybe you missed the point.
From: barney@sol.usc.edu (Barney Lum)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Side-by-side VS tandem seating
Date: 15 Dec 1992 16:42:53 -0800
Organization: USC University Computing Services, Los Angeles
NNTP-Posting-Host: sol.usc.edu


>> urf@icl.se (Urban F) writes:
>> [ ...but Curtis LeMay was influenced by it enough to recommend 
>> side-by-side seating for the B-52, as opposed to tandem...]

> hagood@sabre.den.mmc.com (Dave Hagood) writes:
>	Interesting.  The XB-52 had tandem seating, a la B-47, but I had never
>heard any reason for the change.

I recall that a reason was for crew physiology.  Having side-by-side allowed 
for the pilot/co-pilot to look at (and watch) each other, making them feel
less isolated and able to interact better.  Other advantages probably 
include being able to "get up and around" within the cockpit itself

Speaking of cramped quarters... a BUFF-G (or H) was open for visiting at 
Norton AFB (CA).  The weapons officer (and another) below the main deck sat 
side-by-side in VERY tight and dark (at the time) stations, walled-in by 
instrumentation and displays.  Fuselage interior width in that "office"
probably wasn't more than five or six feet?  Definitely not OSHA-approved...
or for  the clausterphobic! :)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
              >|            
              >|      barney@usc.edu  Barney@USCVM
 -->  -->  --> |   =======    ---    ---    ---    ---    ---   ---    ---  
              >|      Permanent Student Pilot, On the Numbers   
              >|
--------------------------------------------------------------------------


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: ratinox@splinter.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri)
Subject: "Fake" MiGs (was Re: PEARL HARBOR)
X-Posting-Software: GNUS 3.14.1 [ NNTP-based News Reader for GNU Emacs ]
Reply-To: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu
X-Signature-Virus-Protection: Version 1.51
X-Get-A-Clue: Have two, they're small.
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1992 16:54:01 GMT

>>>>> On 14 Dec 1992 13:25:15 GMT, megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU
>>>>> (MegaZone23) said:

>trying to pass off another great plane, the F-5, as a MiG.  If they
>can't be bothered putting in some effort why don't they just fuck off
>and die.

Hey! Someone else who likes the F-5!

Zoner> OK.... Here I disagree... When TG was made the Soviet Union
Zoner> wasn't all that friendly (notice they were the villians?) and
Zoner> weren't about to lease out MiGs to Hollywood. The great thing
Zoner> about Top Gun is it used real planes filmed in flight, unlike
Zoner> IE which mostly used models- badly. They needed aircraft they
Zoner> could get a few of, and could get pilots for. What could
Zoner> they've used? The F-5 doesn't have the same public recognition
Zoner> as the F-4 since the US only uses it for training, well, for
Zoner> the most part. I know people who thought they were T-38s...

Zoner's got a point, here. The F-5 is used to simulate MiGs. So while
it may not *look* like a MiG, it *acts* like a MiG.

BTW, Zoner, the F-5 does look a lot like a T-38. It's supposed to--one
of it's design concepts was similarity to the T-38. The F-5 is used in
the US as a MiG simulator and as NASA space shuttle chase planes. It's
also one of the most highly exported military aircraft.

--Rat
||||| | | | |  |  |  |   |   |    |    |    |   |   |  |  |  |  | | | | | |||||
Northeastern's Stainless Steel Rat          ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu
Sleep with one eye open/Gripping your pillow tight...
Exit: Light/Enter: Night/Take my hand/We're off to Never-Never Land
                                                     --Metallica, Enter Sandman
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: PEARL HARBOR
Date: 17 Dec 92 06:28:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> but there are many of us older types who first saw airshows over 40
-> years ago that think "bug suckers" are not real airplanes; IMHO, a
-> real airplane has one or more propellers.

Jets have propellers. LOTS of them. They just hide them inside. <g>
                                        Rocky
                                                                                   
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: wardml@rtsg.mot.com (Matthew L. Ward)
Subject: Tomahawk Cruise Missile
Summary: Does anyone know ????
Keywords: Drones, Non-piloted Aircraft
Organization: Motorola Inc., Cellular Infrastructure Group
Distribution: global
Date: Fri, 11 Dec 1992 18:52:00 GMT

Does anyone out in etherland happen to know the number of Tomahawks and the 
types produced.  I already have the numbers for McDonnell Douglas Missile
Systems, but I still need to know about the ones produced by the former GD
Missile Company (Now part of Hughes).
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 00:44:43 EST
From: <FWR100@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The A-10
 <92349.103907FWR100@psuvm.psu.edu> <78308@hydra.gatech.EDU>

In article <78308@hydra.gatech.EDU>, gt8303a@prism.gatech.EDU (The Great and
Mighty Confused) says:
>
>In article <92349.103907FWR100@psuvm.psu.edu> FWR100@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>>Sure, this is all true, but there's a little problem: SAMs.  If the A-10 is
>>flying anywhere near a battle area at 10,000 feet, it's going to be greeted
>>by a Surface to Air missile.   Considering that the US Navy took out a
>
>Thus the idea of a coordinated attack force (Wild Weasels, F-16s,
>high-altitude
>bombers, A-10s) comes into play.  The A-10 can carry some of the most
>sophisticated jamming and countermeasure equipment to help deal with the
>threat
>of SAMs, while other planes can knock them off singly or in groups.  My point

Right. You have A/C like the F-16 which will do well out-maneuvering SAMs
but very poorly getting hit with AAA rounds.  The A-10 can absorb a lot more
AAA but has a tougher time with SAMs  (compared with the F-16, which gets
the same sort of countermeasures).  Keep your F-16s high, the A-10s low, and
you're in luck.   Fly the A-10 as a Wild Weasel, or the F-16 low for
CAS, and you're going to have problems.  Each A/C has to be kept in its own
environment.

>is that the USAF will be (and is, from what I have heard at work) making a
>big-time mistake if they mothball the A-10.  If they don't like the fact that
>they are used to support Army ops, why don't they transfer them to the Army,
>and take care of whatever legislation may obstruct such a change?  I'm sure
>the Army would like to see the A-10 remain on active duty.

Put the A-10s in the Army, and you _lose_ the whole combined forces idea.
Unless you get the AF to support the Army's planes with theirs.  Yeah, right.
IMHO, the AF needs an attitude adjustment more than anything else.

-Frank
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: stote@tomcat.den.mmc.com (M. Stote)
Subject: Cheap planes (Re: The A-10)
Organization: Martin Marietta Astronautics Group
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 19:50:23 GMT

I just saw a little blurb saying Ukraine and someone else was selling
Mig 21's to China for $15,000 each ...
- My new slogan ` A Mig in every garage !'


--
fare Well
Mike Stoughton
stote@den.mmc.com
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: Air Force Career Types
Organization: Capital Area Central Texas UNIX Society, Austin, Tx
Date: Sat, 19 Dec 1992 08:19:53 GMT

In article <9212190235.AA16253@cs.utexas.edu> 379LSSCC@strathost.stratcom.af.mil (379LSSCC) writes:
>Well, until you've "walked the walk and talked the talk", don't
>characterize those who have, even for a "short" period.

One thing I've run into over the years, and more these days than ever
before, is this INTENSE desire of individuals to attain some sense of
"uniqueness" by a rigid association with some group, whether an ethnic
minority, a religion, an organization, or even a region.  

However, something else I've learned is that when these people try to
avoid external censure, they invariably resort to a "you're not one
of us, so are not worthy to comment" sophism.

On the contrary, as my experience increased, and I've crossed the line into
some of these "hallowed" groups, what I've found is that the fundamental 
*moral* character of various groups is well-defined, and near-universal: in 
this case, an outsider doesn't need to have gotten up at 5AM and be abused by 
some sergeant during boot camp in order to make pertinent comments.  The 
minutae of military life is, indeed, unique, but is utterly irrelevant when 
we're to define policy or debate the moral and ethical basis of military
actions.

You note that professional soldiers don't often speak out in public, and
that you're breaking the mold.  However, you don't note the reason for this:
the military *executes* policy in this country.  It does not make it.  Our
*elected* officials set policy.  The *taxpayer* pays your salary.  Your
*role* is to carry out policy.  The modern military seems to have a difficult
time with this concept.  Indeed, as the Gulf War showed us, the *public*
is incapable of viewing the military solely as an instrument of policy: it's
become a political entity in and of itself.

The sight of an alleged career officer not only speaking out in such a 
manner, AND "wrapping himself in his service," as a shield to any external
criticism, is truly appalling.  And this has nothing to do with the inane
comments of the original poster.




Regards,

---
Robert Dorsett
rdd@cactus.org
...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd
From: davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: B-1 Desert Storm
Date: 17 Dec 1992 10:30:06 -0600
Organization: UTexas Mail-to-News Gateway
NNTP-Posting-Host: cs.utexas.edu


FWR100@psuvm.psu.edu says:

>We needed to drop precision guided munitions on targets in an area with
>extreme amounts of air defense weaponry.  The stealth of the F-117 was
>important to achieving the mission objective.

Tomahawk, HARM, SLAM.

Anyway, I sort of agree that _maybe_ the F-117 was the only choice, but I
can't help but think that politics had a lot to do with using the -117 in
combat for the first time.

>The B-1 offered no significant advantages over the B-52, and
>has several disadvantages (newer, more expensive, not many around, needed for
>nuclear deterrence).  So, the B-52 was the appropriate choice.

and as discussed, not _cleared_ for conventional weapons.

Dave Hyde
davehyde@tecnet1.jcte.jcs.mil
So I said to the Navy, "These are my opinions,
go and get your own."
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: The A-10
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 92 19:45:54 CST
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com writes:

> 
> The helicopter's sensitivity and inherent lack of stability make it 
> much more likely that an otherwise non-lethal hit on the pilot will
> result in the loss of the aircraft when operating in the near-earth 
> environment, regardless of the number of crew members. Furthermore, 
> the helicopters's combat environment makes it much more likely that 
> the pilot will suffer such a hit.
> 
> Armor is nice, but airspeed = altitude = options.
> 
> ------------
> Bill "Speed is Life" Collum
> wjc@dss1.austin.ibm.com

 Well, your discussion sounds good in theory, but in actual 
practice it just doesn't work that way. Expierence in Viet Nam 
showed that not only could a co-pilot take control of a helicopter 
before the situation became too critical, but also that wounded 
pilots could often land helicopters. There are also some 
documented cases where both pilots were wounded but the lessor 
hurt of the two managed to continue flying until the crew chief 
could remove the other pilot from his seat and take his place. In 
most every unit I worked with in Nam, crew chiefs on the regular 
Hueys were given "stick time" (taught the basics of flying) for 
just this reason. There is also the fact that every helicopter I 
flew there had armored seats for the pilots that could stop 
anything short of a 50 cal and could even deflect those if hit at 
an angle.

 What seems to be missing in this discussion is that each of the 
type of aircraft being discussed has it's own role and mission 
that it is best at. Loosing the A-10 would leave a gap between the 
helicopters for very close support under direct command of the 
ground commander, and the "TAC AIR" type like the F-16 which have 
their limits when it comes to really close in support. Comparison 
of the A-10 with helicopters like the Apache aren't really valid 
since the Apache is intended to fight at or on the front line with 
the ground troops, while the A-10 would be hitting enemy 
concentrations, such as reserves or build-ups, just to the rear of 
the front. Although the Apache was used for deep penetration 
missions at the start of the Gulf War, it's not really intended 
for that role, just as the A-10 is not really intended for the 
Apache's role as an "on the front line tank killer". While I would 
hate to see the A-10 go, I don't really think it should be 
transfered to the Army.

 BTW, does anyone have the figures on the losses of A-10s and 
Apaches in the Gulf war? I don't recall any Apache losses, but 
there were some A-10s lost.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military