HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Cliff@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU (Clifford Johnson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Accidental ICBM launch
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:14:12 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From      "Clifford Johnson" <Cliff@Forsythe.Stanford.EDU>

From jlp@math.byu.edu (Jan L. Peterson)
> In a go-to-war situation, the crews will have known that
> situations were escalating and will have been instructed by a
> command authority to remove their keys from locked boxes located
> in each LCC.  In the event that this happened, the door of the
> LCC would be closed (in normal operations, the door is left
> open).  If necessary, another instruction from a command

The launch crews are in fact capable of responding to a "bolt from
the blue" attack (launch on warning/under attack), or of responding
to a first strike (preemptive) launch order *at any time*, so that
launch is executed within three minutes of receipt of the launch
order.  Crews are told that most likely there will be an escalation
of tension/posture beforehand, but that there remains at all times a
possibility of a sudden launch order which they must immediately
execute.

> If it is determined that we are going to war, a command authority
> (I believe this has to be the President) will instruct that the
> weapons be launched.  At this point, the launch officers will

The suddeb launch on warning scenrario provides for the (likely)
contingency that the President is not avaialable in the few minutes
within which the launch decision must be made.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: How smart are U.S./Russian Sonobuoys?
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:43:49 GMT


From Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>

Well, I don't have a whole lot, but here goes. The first U.S.S.R.
sonobuoy was the RGB-56 which came into service in 1956. We first saw
it in 1959. It was released from an altitude of 500 to 1,000 ft. 152
to 305M, at a speed of 173 m.p.h. (277 km/h) or less. It was deployed
by parachute after launch from the ASW craft, and although had enough
battery power for 4 or 5 days, the buoy was designed to scuttle in 24
hours. It was about 48 in. (1.2 m) long, 8.75 in. (222.25mm) and
weighed 60 pounds (27.3 kg.) The follow on was the RGB-64. It was
smaller, as well as omnidirectional. Later ones indentified are the
BM-1, which became operational in the late '60's, and the type 75,
displayed by the D.O.D. in 1988. The BM-1 was 50.5 in. (1.28 m) long
and 6 in. (152.4 mm) in diameter. It is similiar in the electronics to
the U.S. Navy AN/SSQ-41B. They also use a fixed bottom moored
submarine acoustic detection system, which was given the designation
MGS-407M. ( Mashina Gidroakusticheskaya Svyaz', or hydroacoustic
communications machine.) It has a pop-up antenna that transmits data
to a shore facility. These have been deployed off U.S. Coasts. They
also use a dipping sonar, a RGAB ( Radio Gidroakusticheskaya
Aviatsionnaya Buy, radio hydroacoustic machine buoy.) It has a
ten-element system that is lowered from the buoy. The British use the
Plessey Type 195 dipping sonar on their Westland Lynx, and type 32
buoys. Our Sikorsky S-70L, SH-60B, and SH-60F Seahawks have Bendix
AQS-13F dipping sonars, and two major types of sonobuoys, Type-As, and
dwarf DIFAR. We also have sonobuoys on Lockheed P-3C Orions, S3-A/B
Vikings, and Sikorsky SH-3D Sea kings, and OrKaman SH-2F LAMPS I
Seasprite. The Russians have them on Beriev Be-40 Mermaids, Tupolev
Tu-142 Bear-F/J, Ilyushin Il-38 Mays, Beriev Be-12 Mails, Kamov
Ka-27/Ka-29 Helix, Ka-25 Hormone-A. They all also carry M.A.D.
systems.

-- 
Steven.Schultz@mixcom.com
Leader, Military and Arms topic, Hobbies Conference, Exec-PC BBS (414)789-4210

"Eternal peace lasts only until the next war."-Old Russian Proverb
From: RBARTON@who.trincoll.edu (Ran Barton, III)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Low Altitude Training
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:53:26 GMT
Organization: Trinity College


From RBARTON@who.trincoll.edu (Ran Barton, III)

In article <1992Apr11.002551.19686@cbnews.cb.att.com>, brian@coombs.anu.edu.au (Brian) writes:


I thought I would add that a B-52 pilot at a Dover, Del. AFB airshow
bragged repeatedly about low-level training in Morroco (of all places)
and dodging their Mirage F1s.  When asked specific altitudes, he demurred
but intimated that he had to climb to turn, so that I would imagine he was
down at ~50' or so.  Not bad for a plane older than its crew and designed for
high altitude penetration.

Any aviation talk is welcomed at RBARTON@MAIL.TRINCOLL.EDU
I look forward to hearing from you.
Ran
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: davidg@interop.com (David Gimpelevich)
Subject: Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...
Organization: Interop Company, Mountian View, CA 
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:35:50 GMT


From davidg@interop.com (David Gimpelevich)

In article <1992Apr8.234009.23208@cbnews.cb.att.com> booth@mdd.comm.mot.com (Greg Booth) writes:
>to silence, where the 45 delivers slightly better stopping power, and

Do you have any data on stopping power comparisons between .45 and 9mm?  It
apprears that there is a book out there, whose name and and author escapes me atthe moment, that details actual shooting statistics for various calibers.

I forget how the other calibers compared to the 9mm and the .45, but
the two were virtually identical to each other.

A summary of this info appeared in Guns and Ammo a couple of months back.

Sorry about the lack of better sitations.
-- 

                                        David Gimpelevich
                                       	Interop Company
                                        davidg@interop.com

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>
Subject: Re: Some strange ideas on air assault
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:34:37 GMT


From Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu>

>What if a full-sized carrier sneaked close to the target (assume 3rd world),
>loaded to the brim with paratroopers (the ONLY kind of soldier :-)  ),
>and with some mid-size planes (maybe with rocket assist for takeoff),
>-> the turnaround time of the planes can be much shorter, enabling to
>put down more men during the beginning hours. Maybe: having some
>C-130 Hercules (there are records that it took off with full load
>in 600 feet, without catapult or rocket assist), and have some
>M1A1 Abrams on the carrier. Airborne commanders would love to have them
>fast after landing.
>Any comments?

Not just strange, but pretty pointless.  Isn't this kind of assault job
tailor-made for a Marine Air-Ground Task Force?

Putting an M1 on a CV or CVN is a dubious proposition at best.  How
would you get it from the carrier to the shore?  No C-130 could come
even close to lifting it (M1A1=65-70 tons, C-130 cap.=16-20 tons).  I
doubt that an aircraft that could lift an M1 (the C-17 for example)
would even fit on the carrier deck.

Now, look at the assets that a Marine Expetidionary Brigade possesses. 
First off, a MEB is transported in amphibious ships--ships specifically
designed for the transit of forces ashore.  The air element of the MEB
can use helicopters (or tiltrotor aircraft, if they're bought) to
transport Marines into rear areas.  The LCACs and the AAAV (Advanced
Amphibious Assault Vehicle, the AAV7A2 replacement, when fielded) will
allow the MEB to assault 90% of the world's shorelines from over the
horizon, hopefully insuring that the landing will come as a suprise. 
The LCAC can carry any current piece of military hardware, including the
M1.

There is also a proposal in the Marines to reintroduce the Marine
Parachute units that were used during World War II.  I think they're
planning to make one company per battalion airborne-capable.

Allan
-------------------------------------
Allan Bourdius [(|)K(-)/USMCR]
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu
"Give, expecting nothing thereof."
All opinions are those of the author.
From: TSLYWKA@ucs.indiana.edu (Terence R. Slywka)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Los Angeles Class VS Imp Los Angeles Class (Q)
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:50:13 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From "Terence R. Slywka" <TSLYWKA@ucs.indiana.edu>

Can someone please tell me the difference between a Los Angeles Class 
submarine and an Imp LA sub?  

Also, I have been reading 'Sieze the Moment' the new book by R. Nixon.  In it
he discusses the current ('91) levels of aquisition by the Soviet Military;
ships, tanks, airplanes, etc.  He states that the Soviets were scraping old
equipment (ie November class submarines - according to Jane's) but that they
were also putting newer equipment back out into the field to replace the
obsolete stuff.  According to him, Soviet military spending has continued 
in increase during the Gorbachev years.  I have read this fact somewhere
before, so this was no surprise.  Can someone provide some details about
this and why in the media praise for Gorb. this has not come to light?  

Thanks in advance

Terence Slywka
Indiana University
TSLYWKA@IUBACS
TSLYWKA@UCS.INDIANA.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: tonlun@ida.docs.uu.se (Tony Lundstedt)
Subject: Educating soldiers with the aid of Virtual Reality.
Organization: UDAC, Uppsala, Sweden
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:55:18 GMT


From tonlun@ida.docs.uu.se (Tony Lundstedt)

We are group that is going to write a small essey about virtual reality
at Uppsala University. My idea is to find someone out here that knows
anything about the VR-technique taht is used when training M1A1-crews,
figter pilots and other types of education in these new simulators.
I saw a short story on the TV about one training place for tank crews.
They found it very fun. "It't like a arcade game!"

I'm trying to find some information about applications for VR
when it is used by people untrained and lack knowledge about
the technology. How the implementations is done is not of interest.

If you have any information, please send E-mail to:
	tonlun@student.docs.uu.se

(or just reply, if you want.)

PS. We have a deadline: May 5, 1992 DS.)



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
	ME	: Tony Lundstedt
	Org.	: Dep. of Computer Science, Uppsala Univeristy

	Also	: 1st Lieutenent, 18 Armoured Regiment, Swedish Army.

	E-mail	: tonlun@student.docs.uu.se
		  tonlun@minsk.docs.uu.se
From: john@banach.WPI.EDU (John F Stoffel)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: torpedo firing depth
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:47:26 GMT
Organization: Phule's Company


From john@banach.WPI.EDU (John F Stoffel)

>>>>> On 4 Apr 92 01:31:42 GMT, dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie) said:


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

24224-guthrie> In article <1992Apr3.013402.2610@cbnews.cb.att.com> <CBTCC%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu> writes:

>Storm Rising_.  Clancy makes a big deal of subs having to come up to about
>100 feet or less to fire torpedos- is this correct?  Thanks,

guthrie> Torps have to be forced out of the tube by some mechanism
guthrie> (usually by compressed air). They have to be pushed out
guthrie> pretty much completely for the props to generate any thrust
guthrie> (a prop spinning in the tube just churns up the water in the
guthrie> tube). If the sub is too deep, the outside water pressure
guthrie> makes it impossible to eject the torpedo.

I don't think the outside water pressure is a problem, since the tubes
are usually flooded with the outside water before launch.  The major
concern is how much air they have left and at what pressure the air
is.  I'm not talking about the air they are breathing, but the air in
the storage tanks.  To force the torpedo out of the tube at a deep
depth takes more air than at a shallower depth.  

I'm sure somone else could explain this better.  :-]

				John

--
Youth of today!  Join me in a mass rally for traditional mental attitudes!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
john@wpi.wpi.edu | BELA LUGOSI is my co-pilot..
From: rdictus@vnet3.vub.ac.be (Roy Dictus)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Why F-117
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:18:48 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From rdictus@vnet3.vub.ac.be (Roy Dictus)

According to "F-117 STEALTH in action" (Aircraft Number 115, squadron/
signal publications) by Jim Goodall, an original (60% size) design of the
F-117 was called "Have Blue" (it also says the original name of the SR-71
was A-12; it was designed by Lockheed *and* the CIA S&T people).

The Have Blue prototypes were built at the Lockheed Skunkworks (Burbank,
Calif.) within a couple of months, using mainly off-the-shelf components
(GE J85 engines, A-10 landing gear, fly-by-wire components of the F-16).
Two prototypes were built at a cost of $37 million for both aircraft).

After Have Blue tests, Lockheed went on to design the full-size Lockheed
Stealth Strike Aircraft, using the code name Senior Trend.  F-117A pilot
Steve Paulson adds :

"The story we got is that the F-117A designation was a mistake.  The 117
was a generic term they use up North for all new aircraft and test pilot
flying that they don't have a name for, like the guys flying the MiGs
out there used to be 117 time, because they couldn't designate anything
else.  [...]  Well, Lockheed printed up the first Dash One Pilot Manual
with F-117A on it.  So, the Air Force said they wouldn't pay millions
of dollars to re-do it, so it became the F-117A.  That is how it got its
designation.  It probably would have been the F-19.  It was all a
mistake."


-Roy

Internet: rdictus@vnet3.vub.ac.be
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: <AGM106@psuvm.psu.edu>
Subject: Accidental ICBM launch
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:29:52 GMT


From <AGM106@psuvm.psu.edu>

I doubt it's true, but a friend in SAC said that he heard a roumer that in
1979, an ICBM (Minitueman ?) was accidently launched and hit it's target in
Russia.  He said that the missile only had a practice warhead, and that the
USAF and USSR kept it quiet, for obvious reasons.  Did anyone here ever hear
that one?

  -- Andy Meyer (agm106@psuvm.psu.edu)
  All opinions are my own.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: 8027oconnorw@vmsf.csd.mu.edu
Subject: Re: Some time back, I saw a move called, if memory serves,
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:28:51 GMT


From 8027oconnorw@vmsf.csd.mu.edu


> From Tony.Buckland@mtsg.uge
>  "Twilight's Last Gleaming."  In it, a terrorist group seized an
>  ICBM site and threatened to fire a few. [...]  
>  But it occurred to me, that in this or any similar
>  situation, if an attempt were ever made to actually launch,
>  the missiles would be total sitting ducks as they launched, and
>  could be turned into scrap metal by a concentrated point-blank
>  barrage.

If I remember correctly from one of my classes, there would not be much of 
a problem with the terrorists.  When the order goes out to launch, the crew
in the silo bunker turns their two keys (just like the beginning of WAR 
GAMES) and sends a launch vote.  Miles away, another crew turns their two 
keys and sends out their launch vote.  If there are not two votes, then the
missiles are not released and cannot be launched.  I know that the keys
in the same bunker have to be turned at about the same time (I think a 
one second difference is allowed) but I don't know the time frame for the
two votes to be sent.  Does anyone know?  Also, what is the security like
in that area?  (Dogs, mines, friendly sharpshooters,... what?)

Bill O'Connor

"Two more years of bliss, then reality.  I graduate."
From: u1050427@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Australian Defence Info.
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:44:15 GMT
Organization: University of New South Wales


From u1050427@csdvax.csd.unsw.edu.au

Does anyone know of any military archives concerning the Australian Defence
Forces and their Policies.  The reason I ask is that I am applying for a
Defence Force Undergraduate Scholarship with the Royal Australian Navy
(R.A.N.).  Or, if possible can someone e-Mail me any info they may have.
THANKS HEAPS !!
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Any good books on the Gulf War?
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:57:47 GMT
Organization: Cornell University


From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu

In article <1992Apr7.034312.6083@cbnews.cb.att.com>,
R.J.Collingham@newcastle.ac.uk (R.J.Collingham) writes: 
> 
> Now that it's been over a year since the Gulf War, I have seen several recently
> published books covering the conflict. I was wondering if anyone has
> purchased any of these and/or can recommend any that give good and complete
> coverage of the military operations (especially special forces operations)
> during the war in the Gulf.
> 
> In a similar vein, what about books on the Falklands War? It has been ten
> years since that conflict ended.
> 
> Many thanks in advance.
> 
> Russell

On the Gulf War, James Dunnigan and Austin Bay have a book out called "From
Shield to Storm" which has some interesting anecdotes (some rather
questionable, but none the less entertaining) but (IMHO) falls short of having
"a broad perspective" as the authors describe it.

Also, Col. Harry Summers' "On Strategy II, A Critical Analysis of the Gulf War"
has some good points but spends a lot of time rehashing the US failure in
Vietnam.

On the Falklands, try Max Hastings "The Flaklands War" [or some such]. "Air
War: South Atlantic" is a very good source on the air operations.  (Again the
author escapes me.)  For a more technical analysis, Volume III of "The lessons
of Modern War" by Anthony Cordesman and Abraham Wagner covers both the
Falklands and Afghanistan.

I hope this helps.  (If anyone knows other Gulf War books I would like to know
also.  AdvTHANKSance)

Tom Schoene
WWO@cornella.cit.cornell.edu
Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) -- "You will be missed" 
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: urf@sluss.ki.icl.se (Urban Fredriksson)
Subject: TIALD / Bushcat
Organization: AT&T
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:24:48 GMT


From urf@sluss.ki.icl.se (Urban Fredriksson)

During the Gulf War, RAF Tornadoes were not cleared to carry both
the TIALD (Thermal Imager And Laser-Designator) and bombs (it was
really rushed into service). The aircraft with bombs carried 3
Paveway II 550 kg bombs. A typical strike package could consist
of two designator aircraft, four with bombs, and two with ALARM.

The pod weighs 290 kg, and is 2,9 m long. It can be used through
the lower hemisphere, maximum 155 deg to the rear. It took about
10 min to change it from one aircraft to another.

TIALD can be installed internally in Tornado GR.1:s, instead of
the laser ranger and one or both guns (the GR.1A has
reconnaissance equipment in place of the guns), allowing it to
carry a full bomb load.
---
British Aerospace has shown a project for a family of
(relatively) low-cost laser-guided bombs, called Bushcat.

It's a modular design:
Seekers: Semi-active laser
  Laser/millimetric wave
  IIR/TV with fibre-optic command link
Actuator with rudders
Adaptor: Either a plain         or
  with penetration charge (main charge goes off inside)
Warhead: 450 kg bomb (225 - 900 kg range possible)
  Mine dispenser
  Bomblet dispenser
  8 Merlin guided anti-tank rounds (wonder if they can be
  released one at a time, as needed?)
Tail unit with flip-out fins
Optional two or four rocket motors.
MIL STD 1760 Interface
Optional INS to let it reach the point where it can find the target.

Those who buy it, will of course not know in advance how many
targets of different types they will encounter, but they can save
money by not purchasing "complete sets", and then mix and match.
(They can thank me by sending me 5% of the saved money :-)

>From Flight International 1-7 April 1992
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se 'Reply' may not work.   I'm _not_ a spokesman!
 If you plan to read just one book this year...
 ...you read far too few books.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)
Subject: Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...
Organization: The Capital Area Central Texas Unix Society
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:09:37 GMT


From rdd@cactus.org (Robert Dorsett)

In article <1992Apr10.013802.9844@cbnews.cb.att.com> grex@world.std.com (Mark J Urbin) writes:
>   In an recent book written by the founder and ex-commander of Seal Team Six
>(Rogue Warrior by Richard Markinkos), the author mentioned that his unit
>used 9mm autos.  
[...]
>  Delta force used .45 autos.  They liked the stopping power and the fact that 
>a .45 slug would NOT go through the side of an Airliner.

Sure they can.  An airliner's fuselage is an incredibly thin piece of
metal; all that separates it from the passengers is a bunch of insulation,
maybe some wiring, and a piece of very thin, light-weight plastic.  For a 
time, 0.22-derived pistols were popular in air security circles, but even 
those can penetrate.


Beckwith's DELTA FORCE further notes (p. 188, 1985 Dell PB edition):

"A lot of people argue that a .45 is not the best sidearm available.
In Delta there was no argument.  I'd seen what its big, heavy 230-grain
bullet could do.  It'll knock a man slap down.  Plus, a .45 ACP slug travels
very slowly.  Whereas a 9mm projectile will run between 1,100 and 1,200 feet
per second, the .45 moves at approximately 850 feet per second--standing
behind it you can actually see it moving.  In an airplane cabin, a 9mm
bullet fired from an HK P7, because of its muzzle velocity, will likely
go through a terrorist, through a seat, and end up in an innocent bystander.
A .45 slug, on the other hand, will penetrate but may not exit the target."


I think people are missing the point when they talk about the types of toys 
special-forces types get to use.  They're not going to be using off-the-rack 
military issue; special forces get *special* toys.  I don't see that any high-
level procurement decisions are going to significantly affect SEALS or Delta 
one way or the other: they get what they need, and what works for their
mission.  On the other hand, larger, more mainstream special forces groups, 
like the Rangers, would likely be substantially affected.


Caveat: I know nothing about the above.  "I read books."




---
Robert Dorsett
Internet: rdd@cactus.org
UUCP: ...cs.utexas.edu!cactus.org!rdd

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Pougachev's Cobra
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 03:29:26 GMT


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

>From SORENSD@SLUVCA.SLU.EDU
>... on the Cobra technique ...
>When would that actually be to their advantage?  It seems that dogfighting
>has lost its importance in today's Air to Air mission.

When have we heard *that* before? :-)  Dogfighting remains significant,
although it's something no sensible pilot will get into if he has a
choice (and *that* has been true since WWI at least).

Pougachev's Cobra maneuver, made famous on the Su-27, does not appear to
have any practical uses, and I believe the Soviet/Russian pilots have
said so.  Its main significance is that it demonstrates a remarkable
tolerance for flow disturbances in the engines, which is significant
for less drastic and more useful maneuvers.
-- 
GCC 2.0 is to C as SVR4 is to Unix.     | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
                             -Dick Dunn |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin)
Subject: Re: Thor crowbars energy (was re: Offensive applications of SDI)
Organization: Yale Computer Science Department
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:39:02 GMT


From yarvin-norman@CS.YALE.EDU (Norman Yarvin)

Forget this wimpy crowbar stuff.  How about we use Edward Teller's proposal
of changing the course of asteroids with nuclear weapons?  Only, instead of
redirecting the asteroid _away_ from the earth, we redirect it _toward_
whatever nation we want to totally annihilate.

--
Norman Yarvin						yarvin@cs.yale.edu
 "If I had only known, I would have been a locksmith."
		-- Albert Einstein

Newsgroups: sci.military