HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Why F-117
Date: 15 Apr 92 23:08:34 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


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

>From yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)
>Why the AF designated the F-117 F-117 instead of maybe F-19.

Nobody knows.  Most people thought it was the F-19 until it was officially
unveiled.  "F-117" is a violation of the official designation rules.

One strong possibility...  The US has a substantial collection of ex-Soviet
aircraft, acquired by various devious methods.  Apparently the pilots who
fly them had (have?) a habit of referring to them by nonexistent F-series
designations -- the highest legitimate F is the F-111 -- to avoid revealing
the true nature of the aircraft over the radio.  The stealth fighter was
flying in the same area, and some degree of confusion between it and the
ex-Soviet fighters was probably deliberate policy, so it may have had one
of these informal designations.  Why it was made official remains unclear.
-- 
ISDN, n:  Incredibly Slow and Dumb      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Networking                              |  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: manuelp@bullet.ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald N.)
Subject: Re: Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker
Organization: University of Toronto, Engineering Computing Facility
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:31:28 GMT


From manuelp@bullet.ecf.toronto.edu (MANUELPILLAI Gerald N.)

>From a recent issue of AW&ST (March 9, 1992) :

" The Commonwealth of Independent States is loosening the wraps on some of
its newest military aircraft.
 They were shown at a military aircraft show in Minsk....
" ...Among the aircraft shown were the two-seat Sukhoi Su-27IB and the aircraft
carrier capable Su-27K.
 The Su-27IB is a side-by-side seating, fighter-bomber version of the Flanker.
Note the inflight refueling probe inset in the fuselage of the Su-27IB and the 
canards on both fighters." (There are B&W photos of both a/c in the article).
The inflight refueling probe is deployed on the Su-27K.  It is similar to the
probe and drogue system used in U.S Navy aircraft.  The wings fold on the naval
version of the Su-27, unlike the standard Flanker......"

Gerald M
From: dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: THOR - 16kt?
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:24:07 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


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


Ok, let's try one more time.

Those scientists who postulate a yield of 16KT for a Thor impact
do indeed postulate that a small, inefficient fusion reaction will
occur on impact. This assumption is primarily based on an explosion
which occurred in Siberia around 100 years ago which produced a
tremendous amount of damage relative to the size of the impact
crater. One explanation which has been advanced for this disparity
is that the impact of objects moving at cometary speeds will produce
a fusion reaction due to compression of the material. No one knows
whether this will occur in fact, because noone has weighed a meteor
before impact.

Even among those who assume that only kinetic energy is involved, the
estimates of yield from Thor impacts vary wildly, primarily because
noone is certain how efficient the conversion of momentum to heat energy
will be at those speeds. If you assume 100% efficient conversion, you
need a 21 ton "crowbar" to get a 16KT yield. The more pessimistic people
at JPL postulate that efficiency would be only around 20%, which means
you'd need about 105 tons up there.

Again. Nobody knows for sure. I'm not qualified to have an opinion.

Another poster pointed out that Thor is simply storing the energy derived
from the missile used to place the crowbars in orbit. True (if you don't
buy the fusion theory). The reason one would prefer Thor, rather than
simply using ICBMs, is that one could leisurely launch thousands of Thor
crowbars during peacetime, rather than attempting to launch all of them
in a short period of time during a war. They also would be difficult or
impossible to intercept, while an ICBM can be intercepted.

The source for all this is an old Analog science article. Jerry Pournelle
was quoted but was not the author.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | There are very few personal problems which
George Patterson -  | cannot be solved by a suitable application
                    | of high explosive.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)
Subject: How did the "pistols vs. airliners" thread get started?
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:13:32 GMT


From mwj@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson)

I missed the startup of the "pistols vs. airliners" thread due to an extended
bout of professional travel -- and vacation, which included a little episode
that bears on that thread.  In a nutshell, I was told, by someone who should
know, that in the WWII B-29, a relatively small breach in the pressurized parts
of the hull *could* cause catastrophic failure.

I'll gladly write a posting with details, but if the B-29 was in fact the plane
that gave rise to the thread (credible, considering how and where I had my
encounter), it may already have been covered.  Can you help me out with a little
background before I send the posting, to prevent unnecessary redundancy, so to
speak? :-)

-- Bill.

P.S. I am again thinking of a posting explaining what classification is all
about.  With the recent postings on Minuteman LCC vulnerabilities, it's starting
to get a bit thick out there ...
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: self sealing tanks.how do they work?
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:52:37 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


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

>From EACZ02XE%GRTHEUN1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu
> i've been hearing of self-sealing tanks on WWII aircraft for a long time...
> could someone tell me how they work? (i know that they are double walled
>with foam in between, but the way the foam works is still unkwown to me)

I believe the foam swells on contact with fuel, thus tending to close
small holes.
-- 
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: kdrolt@athena.mit.edu (Kenneth D Rolt)
Subject: Re: raised section on 637-class sub
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:46:46 GMT
Keywords: submarine  sturgeon-class  637


From kdrolt@athena.mit.edu (Kenneth D Rolt)

in a previous posting, jan wolitzky directed us to the April 92 issue of
the Procedings of the Naval Institute, p. 73, for a photo of a Sturgeon class
(637) sub, the USS Parche.  the sub had two odd protrusions, one fore and one
aft of the sail.  i'll offer my guess as to what they are:

the foremost rasied section resembles the hydro fairing which covers the
exposed portion of a missile tube that doesn't quite fit into a hull.  since
the SSN 683 Parche is a late-model 637, but not a newer 688, it might have
been considered worthy of some substantial alterations.... to see how a
vertical missile launcher would work in an SSN.  i think i read somewhere
(unclassified.. Jane's ???) that some of the newer 688s have such a system,
thopugh presumeably more refined, and blended into the hull rather than
patched in as i'm guessing for the Parche photo.  the holes along the side
of the section might just be drainage &/or pressure equalization holes.  So the
fairing floods.  the photo isn't detailed enough (or my eyes are good enough)
to observe doors on top of the section.

the aftmost protrusion does look like a sonar dome;  it probably does contain
a special sonar; perhaps a special low-freq. side scan (low freq. for a side
scan is below 50 kHz).  it wouldn't be a standard search sonar because it can't
look fwd without the sail interfering. So it has to look sideways, port and
starbrd respectively.

these are my armchair guesses.  other views?

ken rolt  grad student / mit ocean engineering

kdrolt@athena.mit.edu
From: AI4CPHYW%MIAMIU.BITNET@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: RE: I thought I saw an F86
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:47:54 GMT
Organization: Miami University - Academic Computer Service


From <AI4CPHYW%MIAMIU.BITNET@OHSTVMA.ACS.OHIO-STATE.EDU>

This is a followup to my earlier post of approximately the same subject.
Our news feed has been kinda wierd lately (my own posting hasn't yet made
it back here yet!!) so I am just going to post this way instead.

I went to the library this evening and, according to _American Combat Planes_
by Ray Wagner (Library of Congress call TL685.3.W17) I saw a Republic F-84.
(I had my numbers wrong when I said F86).  The book says the aircraft went
through 4 revisions (F-84B, C, D and E) was powered by a single Allison J35
engine had a  wingspan of 36 feet 5 inches, length of 37 feet 5 inches,
and weighed 16,475 pounds fully loaded.  Its top speed was 587 mph and it
had a ceiling of 40,750 feet.  Its range was 1282 miles.

Thanks to all of you who responded to my original post with suggestions as
to what I may have seen (since I was wrong with my F86 guess).  It was
really cool to see a piece of flying history like that, as low as it was.
(And it must be a real kick for the owner when asked by some Piper owner
what kind of plane _he_ flies. :) :)


                      -Alec D. Isaacson
                       AI4CPHYW @ miamiu.acs.muohio.edu
                       isaacson @ rogue.acs.muohio.edu (NeXt Mail)
                       Miami University, Oxford, OH
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
"If you blow chunks and she comes back she's yours . . . If you hurl
and she doesn't come back, it was never meant to be."
                        -Words to live by from Wayne and Garth
From: rwhit@cs.umu.se (Randall Whitaker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Low Altitude Training
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:55:34 GMT
Organization: Dep. of Info.Proc, Umea Univ., Sweden


From rwhit@cs.umu.se (Randall Whitaker)

In <1992Apr10.015204.11511@cbnews.cb.att.com> macklin@garnet.berkeley.edu (Macklin Burnham) writes:
>Well, two years ago I wangled a VIP tour of SAC's 15 Air Force, and while
>we were inspecting a B52H at March AFB, the AC told me that they were
>currently practicing missions below 200 feet. That's right, in B52's.He
>said it was great fun.
>Mack Burnham

Hej: 

In the early 1980's, on Interstate 81 near Meadowview VA I saw a B52 
flying east-west at around 200 feet off the meadows.  Yes, I was sober, and 
there's no mistaking that bird that close.  He was just cruising slow and 
easy.......

A lot of military craft use the southern Appalachians for practicing low 
altitude stuff in amongst the knobs and hollers.  In the 1970's there 
seemed to be a craze for joy-riding F-4's as hot and low as possible out in 
the boonies on the TN-NC border.  Spoiled many an idyll, they did... ;-).

Randall Whitaker
Informationsbehandling / ADB
Umeaa University 
901  87   Umeaa   Sweden   rwhit@cs.umu.se
From: frank@toadflax.ucdavis.edu (Jeremy Frank)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Mini-Gun question
Keywords: Mini-gun, Puff the Magic Dragon
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:34:25 GMT
Organization: UC Davis, EECS Division of Computer Science


From frank@toadflax.ucdavis.edu (Jeremy Frank)


Other folks will doubtless post more complete info, but here's what
I know.  There are at least 2 forms of the "minigun", based on the
GAU-8 Avenger system mounted in the nose of the A-10 Warthog.  One is
a 5.56mm version, another is a 7.62mm version.  I think both have 6
barrels as opposed to the GAU's 8 barrels.  (I've seen pictures of an
AH-1 version with a 3-barreled 30mm cannon, which isn't quite the same
thing.)  I don't remember models or rates of fire.  (Gene Kennedy, help!
:-)

The latest version of the "Puff the Magic Dragon" style gunship is the
AC-130 Spectre gunship.  Dredging my memories of what Arsenal of Democracy
says this gunship has:
	3-5 5.56mm miniguns
	1-2 7.62mm miniguns
	1 120mm howitzer (!) in the loading bay
(I'm serious, this is what I remember.  I couldn't believe it when I read
it either.) 
I also remember that there is a version of this gunship nicknamed the 
Combat Talon, specifically designed for special operations; presumably with
various night-fighting gear, limited transport and fewer weapons.
Someone else will have to fill in the details, because my sources are in
another state.

							Jeremy
"Failing a test is a learning experience; however, sometimes I'd
rather get the A." --Peter Morrisey
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Japanese Jets in World War 2
Keywords: Kikka, Shusui, jet, rocket
Date: 8 Apr 92 00:38:47 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group


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

In article <1992Apr4.011921.10603@cbnews.cb.att.com> dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie) writes:
>
>There is (or was) another Zero (a basket case) in storage at a small
>museum on US 41 north of Marietta, Georgia. The Atlanta Journal did an
>article on it in 1980 or '81. According to that, a former Japanese Navy
>mechanic took a look at it and said that it could be restored. For you
>Georgians, the last time I saw that museum it had an old hook & ladder
>parked out front.

There was a private collection of warbirds north of Marietta, but 
unfortunately the owner died in a mid-air a couple of months ago. 
I don't know what happened to the collection.

Gary
From: mchui@mango.ucs.indiana.edu (Michael Chui)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:55:17 GMT
Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington


From Michael Chui <mchui@mango.ucs.indiana.edu>

In article <1992Apr11.002035.19188@cbnews.cb.att.com> Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com> writes:
>It is highly manuverable and is compared to
>the General Dynamics F-15E Strike Eagle. The orignial is an air-intercept
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
	Actually, Mickey D's manufactures the Eagle.  (BTW, why would the
Pentagon have to bail them out?  Couldn't they have transferred funds from
their fast food division to cover the shortfall?  ;)

>fighter, but a ground-attack version is being produced.

	Is the ground-attack version of the Su-27 a 2-seater?

Michael Chui
mchui@copper.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat)
Subject: Re: White Phosphorus
Organization: 3WA, Boston Office. Or Nu Meta Chi. Take your pick.
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:56:37 GMT


From ratinox@meceng.coe.northeastern.edu (Richard Pieri/Stainless Steel Rat)

>>>>> In article <1992Apr7.035242.7155@cbnews.cb.att.com> ha0h+@andrew.cmu.edu (Herbert Simon Ascherman) writes:

ha0h+> A friend of mine's father was wounded by white phosphorus in WWII,
ha0h+> and he and I were wondering what exactly WP is, what it does and how it
ha0h+> works.

Phosphorous is a poisonous, nonmetallic element. It combusts at relatively
low temperatures (around 40 degrees F) in pure forms, higher temperatures
(100+ degrees F) when mixed with stabilizing chemicals.

In grenades, an explosive charge causes dispersal of phosphorous particles
into a cloud. These particles stick to whatever they contact, and
immediately begin to burn. Treatment after being hit by phosphorous usually
means being placed in a bath of ice water while each individual particle is
removed. The down side is that after injury, the ice water bath can put the
victim into shock or a comatose state. This is why phosphorous grenades are
so deadly--if the victim doesn't receive treatment almost immediately,
they'll burn to death; if they do, the treatment may kill them.

My regards to your friend's father for surviving. My father lost a friend
during the Korean War to a phosphorous grenade. The friend, a drill
sergeant (hey! my dad was a firearms instructor at the time, ok? :-), was
demonstrating how to use phosphorous grenades, and the pin didn't lock the
lever down when he replaced it. The results of being sprayed with
phosphorous weren't pretty.

--Rich P.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: andrem@pyrman2.pyramid.com (Andre Molyneux)
Subject: Aircraft ID
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:25:27 GMT


From andrem@pyrman2.pyramid.com (Andre Molyneux)

Alec D. Isaacson wrote:

>I was out today (Saturday) working on my car and I saw what I think
>was a F86 fighter.  It had cruciform wings (they were at a 90 degree
>angle to the fuselage, not swept at all) with a large football shaped
>object at each wing tip.  It had a single tail with control surfaces
>at the top of the rudder.  And it was jet powered, but with no visible
>engine (the engine was contained within the fuselage I guess). I got
>a pretty good look at it because the pilot made several relatively low
>passes over the town.

The F-86 Sabre was a swept-wing design, so this aircraft must have been
something else.  My guess would be an F-80 Shooting Star (Lockheed???)  I
seem to remember it having straight wings, fuel-tanks that could be fitted
to the wing-tips, engine intakes just in front of the wing-roots, and the
exhaust near the tail.

(This is all from my faulty memory going back to junior-high school, but
if I'm wrong I'm sure someone with reference books on hand will be happy
to correct me  8-)

+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| Andre J. Molyneux              | Internet: andrem@pyramid.com            |
| Pyramid Technology Corporation |                                         |
| San Jose, California           | Packet:   ka7wvv@n0ary.#nocal.ca.usa.na |
+--------------------------------+-----------------------------------------+
| "I'd prefer something a bit more melodious, like the long, drawn-out     |
| death rattle of a man suffering from terminal flatulence."               |
|                                 -- Dave Lister in Red Dwarf IV           |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold)
Subject: Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 1992 00:36:55 GMT


From cga66@ihlpy.att.com (Patrick V Kauffold)

For law enforcement and MP-type use, the 9mm (or more modern
.45) represents an improvement.  Lighter weight, better accuracy,
and increased capacity make sense for these folks who have a
high probability for using a side arm.

For combat, it hardly matters for the general population.
WWII statistics (with .45) had more (by a large factor, if
I remember right) "own goals" than enemy casualties, due
mostly to accidents loading, unloading, and poor maintenance
of the weapon.  An old .45 with a round in the chamber and
thumb safety, issued to someone who has not qualified in
years (if ever) does not give one a warm feeling.

Just having a side arm with double action and a poitive
safety has reduced (but not elimiated) accidents.

This is not just a military problem; police organizations
have a devil of a time getting people to shoot enough to
remain proficient.  If you are not proficient with a .45,
it would be better to carry a baseball bat.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Neal Altman <na@SEI.CMU.EDU>
Subject: Re: self sealing tanks.how do they work?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 23:10:48 GMT


From Neal Altman <na@SEI.CMU.EDU>


|> i've been hearing of self-sealing tanks on WWII aircraft for a long time...
|> could someone tell me how they work? (i know that they are double walled 
|> with foam in between, but the way the foam works is still unkwown to me) 

In WWII, the "foam" was a rubber liner.  I believe the rubber was not 
vulcanized.  This is one of the reasons why rubber was a strategic material
throughout the war.  U.S. gas rationing, for instance, was intended to reduce
tire wear, as the supplies of automotive grade gasoline were (more or less) 
sufficient to meet all needs.

			Neal Altman
			na@sei.cmu.edu
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:13:39 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group


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

In article <1992Apr10.013550.9278@cbnews.cb.att.com> davidg@interop.com (David Gimpelevich) writes:
>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.

This is Evan Marshall's study of single shot stops for US police forces.
The single best stopper is a 124 grain 9mm hollowpoint at 85%. The FMJ
230 grain .45 is at 82%.

Gary
From: slagerto@uther.calvin.edu (Tom Slager)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Sidewinder
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:53:21 GMT
Organization: Calvin College


From slagerto@uther.calvin.edu (Tom Slager)

I recently picked up the IBM version of Falcon3.  I noticed that when going
against the Mig-29, a sidewinder hit rarely brings them down.  Is this pretty
acurate?  I would hate to think that it takes 2 hits per plane in the real 
world.
--
Is the hand on your shoulder from the Lord above |  slagerto@
Or is it the Devil himself, come to give you a   |  uther.calvin
shove?                                           |  .edu
From: yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Why F-117
Date: 15 Apr 92 03:50:16 GMT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA


From yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)

Why the AF designated the F-117 F-117 instead of maybe F-19.

We know there was F-17,18,20,21,22,23, where was F-19?

SF
bvc

-- 
******************************************************************************
* #$!#$^%!^&%#%$^@#^#!$%%$#%$!^$&@*^#(&$()%&*%%&$^$#@$@#$#@^&$&^$&$^^%$#$%%# *
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*                yuqian.bvc.edu		    the Suicidal Freshman            *
******************************************************************************