HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: accidental nuclear detonation
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:27:42 GMT


From Codesmiths <dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk>


> >The story I heard of why the Titan blew up was that a technician dropped
> >a spanner down the silo and it punctured the missile's fuel tank. This
> >seemed a bit unlikely to me, since it would be falling down parallel to
> >the side of the missile.

>From "US Nuclear Weapons", Chuck Hansen


19th September 1980
Titan II ICBM
Damascus, Arkansas

During routine maintenance in a Titan II silo, an Air Force repairman
dropped a heavy wrench socket, which rolled off a work platform and
fell toward the bottom of the silo. The socket bounced and struck the
missile, causing a leak from the pressurized fuel tank. The missile
complex and the surrounding area were evacuated and a team of
specialists was called in from Little Rock Air Force Base, the
missile's main support base. About 8 1/2 hours after the initial
puncture, fuel vapours within the silo ignited and exploded. The
explosion fatally injured one member of the team. Twenty-one other
USAF personnel were injured. The missile's re-entry vehicle, which
contained a nuclear warhead, was recovered intact. There was no
radioactive contamination.


          Andy Dingley    dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: urf@sluss.ki.icl.se (Urban Fredriksson)
Subject: Low altitude training
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:53:08 GMT


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

Low level flying doesn't necessarily cause a lot of accidents.
These are the Swedish air force's figures for the last years:

87 88 89 90 91
Crashes      1  4  3  4  3
Casualities  1  4  2  3  0

...and this for close to 600 aircraft, of which more than 500 are
jets expected to fly at low altitude, sometimes.

I don't have a handy reference, but I can only recall one due to
ground collision, and that was when a clearly lost target tower
flew into the side of a mountain in fog. Else it's mostly engine
failures, air collisions and a case or two of G-LOC. Admittedly,
anything that happens is more serious, the lower you are.

I don't think anyone practises dogfights at very low altitudes.
At the Decimomannu ACMI range, of Sardinia, beginners aren't
allowed under 10,000 ft, and no-one under 5,000 ft. But they
practice as if that _is_ the ground level, with (simulated)
missile performance adjusted correspondingly.
-- 
 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: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Subject: Re: Mini-Gun question
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:57:25 GMT


From fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)

Back in the 60's my uncle was an engineer at Picitanny arsenal
in Dover NJ. He took me up there one time when they were testing
the 20mm vulcan (prototype) and I remember it EMPTYING a flat
bed railroad car of ammo in a very short period of time.
(I also got to see a silver ground effects motorcycle prototype)
At nite from an AC130 the miniguns are one solid red line
from the tracers and considering that they are put one
tracer every 500 rounds thats impressive.
{How would you like to hand load for one of them honeys}
Also keep in mind that by the time they are done they are
throwaways from heat distortion and barrel warp. They are
also crew fired from the Air Force's H-53 rescue choppers
using toggle grips and all the trigger does is turn on the
motor.
Gatling guns (non electric) are completely legal as they
are only semi auto. A guy up by me builds a .22 cal replica
of a colt 45-70 that is 2 feet high 3 feet long and all
stainless steel and brass mounted on a caision (wood and
iron) they are a work of art that also shoots, $10,000.00
a copy BTW, hand built.
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.belcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I DONT CARE IF I SOUND CONFUSED, I KNOW WHAT I MEAN !!!

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)
Subject: Re: Air to Ground Missiles List
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 03:56:05 GMT


From yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)

In article <1992Apr7.032903.3544@cbnews.cb.att.com>, dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk (Codesmiths) writes:

>> Air to Ground Missiles
> Boar
> SLAM
> Popeye

SRAM?

-- 
******************************************************************************
* #$!#$^%!^&%#%$^@#^#!$%%$#%$!^$&@*^#(&$()%&*%%&$^$#@$@#$#@^&$&^$&$^^%$#$%%# *
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*                yuqian.bvc.edu		    the Suicidal Freshman            *
******************************************************************************
From: smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 top speed estimatates
Date: 13 Apr 92 03:49:52 GMT
Organization: who knows


From smpod@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)

prm@ecn.purdue.edu (Phil Moyer) writes...
>The "SR-71 Supersonic/Hypersonic Research Facility Researchers Handbook",
>published by NASA, has (on page 11) a Dynamic Pressure Range listed.  Using
>that set of numbers (325-847 lbs/sq.ft), it is possible to back-calculate
>a theoretical equivalent velocity.  At 85,000 feet, that velocity is
>3,410 mph.  Using the speed of sound at 85,000 feet (663.6 mph), that equates
>to Mach 5.14.  No, that's not a typo, that's Mach five-point-one-four.

I think that there is something wrong with your calcs: Mach 5 is the beginning
of the hypersonic range and I highly doubt that the SR-71 is that fast without
aero-heat problems. Using 

          dynamic pressure =density*velocity**2/2 or 
          dynamic pressure =pressure*gamma*Mach Number**2/2

Using 847 lbs/ft**2, I get M=2.34 approx.

It seems that NASA is using the Sr-71s in a convervative regime.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)
Subject: Re: Accidental ICBM launch
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver, Wa.  USA
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:00:31 GMT


From gsnow@clark.edu (Gary Snow)

In article <1992Apr10.012952.7820@cbnews.cb.att.com> AGM106@psuvm.psu.edu writes:
>
>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?

We might have, but then they would have had to kill us....:-)

Gary

-- 
-----
Gary Snow
uunet!clark!gsnow  or  gsnow@clark.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: masman@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (CMS Coordinator)
Subject: Special Weapon ?
Organization: University at Buffalo
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 03:24:36 GMT


From masman@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (CMS Coordinator)


 I heard that the military was exploring a new kind of stun weapon.  It is a
take-off of the flash-bang grenade causing a severe loss of motor-coordination
and disoriention.  It alleges to spew out nerve gas and a photo-optic mist which
highlights an enemy to certain infared-goggles, thus allowing the soldiers
storming the confused (and often smoking) area to distinguish between friend 
and foe. I heard it was used by American troops storming trenches in Desert 
Storm at night, but have not heard of it otherwise.  Supposedly, several Special
Forces groups such as the Delta Force and the German GSG9, as well as SAS use
this weapon.  Has anyone else heard of this ?

Any information on this weapon or the groups mentioned above would be greatly
appreciated.
			Thanks in advance, please reply via e-mail

					MASMAN

P.S.-because of the various prohibitions on nerve gas, what would be any
legal/moral implications of such a weapon ?
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:14:46 GMT
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group


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

In article <1992Apr13.034056.5542@cbnews.cb.att.com> douglas@netcom.com (Doug - MIS x7889) writes:
>
>Actually I have heard that they use the Glock series 9mm pistols for
>two reasons - the finish is Tennifer, supposedly wears well to water
>and other things the SEALs encounter, and they can also be OEMed with
>some special springs or something that give them the ability to shoot
>underwater.

The Glock is indeed corrosion resistant, and only two components need
to be changed to make it fire reliably under water, the firing pin
and spring. 

Gary
From: kentm@rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: SR-71 top speed estimates
Keywords: blackbird  mach 3
Date: 14 Apr 92 00:44:54 GMT
Organization: Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY


From kentm@rpi.edu (Michael V. Kent)

In article <1992Apr10.014334.10616@cbnews.cb.att.com> kdrolt@athena.mit.edu (Kenneth D Rolt) writes:

[asks what the top speed of the SR-71 Blackbird is]

NASA gave a presentation on the SR-71 at the 1991 EAA Fly-in in Oshkosh.  I
don't remember his name, but the speaker claimed the recently declassified
(in 1991) top speed was Mach 3.43.

Mike

-- 
Michael Kent                                   kentm@rpi.edu
McDonnell Douglas                              Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
All facts in this post are based on publicly available information.  All
opinions expressed are solely those of the author.    Apple II Forever !!
From: EACZ02XE%GRTHEUN1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: low flying aircraft
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:26:20 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From EACZ02XE%GRTHEUN1.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu

low flying aircraft deduction: "next time you hear a jet,remember to look down
first" !
kostas papakotas the "sniper" (relay nick)
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
Subject: Re: US SMG (Was Re: US Navy's request for Beretta M9 cancellation...)
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 04:21:38 GMT


From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu

In article <1992Apr14.004127.25133@cbnews.cb.att.com>,
Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com (Steven.Schultz) writes: 
> 
> 
> We use the M249 and M60 as SMGs, and neither are 9mm. I have specs if
> yo want them.

I think you're a little confused here.  SMG stands for Sub-machinegun,
typically a relatively light automatic weapon firing pistol ammunition.
The M249 is a Squad Automatic Weapon (SAW) or light machine gun firing the same
5.56mm rifle ammunition as the M16A2 assault rifle.  The M60 is a General
Purpose Machine Gun firing 7.62 NATO ammunition, again a rifle round.  Both are
issued to infantry squads in the U.S. military (and elsewhere, I believe). 
Neither could be termed a submachinegun (unless you were referring to the M60's
performance ;-)

There is one odd weapon which I have heard described as an SMG.  The M231 Fring
Port Weapon is a version of the M16 designed for firing from inside a Bradley
and has a collapsing wire stock like many SMG's.  My question is, why did the
U.S. Army decide they needed a new weapon for firing ports when there are
several designs of firing ports which allow the troops to use their normal
weapons?

Tom Schoene
WWO@cornella.cit.cornell.edu
""If you can't say something nice, say something trancendental"


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Self-Destruct Mechanisms
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 1992 00:58:48 GMT


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

>From craig.patten@f824.n680.z3.fido.zeta.org.au (Craig Patten)
>Hi. Seeing that the F-117A and the Stealth Bomber are such highly advanced
>machines, and have such highly advanced weaponry and systems, is there any
>sort of protection (eg. "Self Destruct") to stop the equipment getting into
>enemy hands in, say, the case of an emergency landing?

The only real answer to this is "possibly".  Bear in mind that there is no
realistic way to demolish such an aircraft completely enough to prevent
analysis of materials and the like -- nobody is going to use nuclear
destruct charges! -- and the destruct charges themselves are dangerous
to both the aircraft crews and the maintenance technicians.  (Real soldiers
treat explosives of *any* kind with great respect, unlike the nonsense
seen in most war movies.)  For a small fleet of very sensitive aircraft
with unusual technology aboard, perhaps the gains would be thought worth
the risks.  The presence of such charges would almost certainly be secret,
since even a little knowledge can be very helpful when trying to disarm
such a thing quickly.

As others have mentioned, the pilots have to have enough faith in things
like time delays to be willing to arm the charges.

I think I'd expect small charges within individual items of equipment,
just powerful enough to scramble high-tech innards, rather than a large
charge meant to demolish the whole aircraft.
-- 
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
From: biman@turtle.ee.queensu.ca (Aapoolcoyuz)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker
Summary: Su-27 and the Cobra maneuver
Date: 15 Apr 92 04:29:17 GMT
Organization: Dept. of Electrical Engineering, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada


From biman@turtle.ee.queensu.ca (Aapoolcoyuz)



I was under the impression that only
the Su-27 did "Pougachev's (sp?) Cobra".  I didn't think the 
Mig-29 did (or was capable) of doing it as well.

I could however be totally wrong about this....anyone
care to enlighten me on this ?



                                        A. Biman
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "jon.lafrance" <jonl@rb-csd.sandiego.NCR.COM>
Subject: end of an era
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:23:04 GMT


From "jon.lafrance" <jonl@rb-csd.sandiego.NCR.COM>

                          END OF AN ERA

A bit of news I picked-up from the Pacific Flyer That may be of
interest.

The following is reprinted with permission from the Pacific
Flyer.

The USS Midway (CV41) the last WWII-era aircraft carrier was
scheduled to be decommissioned April 11 at Navel Air Station
North Island, San Diego after 46 years of Navel service.

Since the Midway's commissioning in 1945, more then 200,000
members of the Navy-Marine Corps team have served aboard the ship
in operations including the Vietnam war and Desert Storm.

Former crewmen are invited to attend the ship's decomissioning
ceremony. Interested crewmen should call the Decomissioning
Ceremony Officer, USS Midway at (619) 545-1705.
-- 

+==========================================================================+
| Jon LaFrance       Corporate Customer Services       PM&S E&M San Diego  |
| NCR - 440-2805    (jon.lafrance@sandiego.ncr.com)    FAX  (619) 485-3400 |
| (619) 485-2805 (...!ncrcom!ncr-sd!rb-csd!jonl)       CEMS = rbf          |
+==========================================================================+
From: yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: F86??? Spotted in Ohio
Date: 17 Apr 92 00:56:21 GMT
Organization: Buena Vista College, Storm Lake, IA


From yuqian@bvc.edu (Suicidal Freshman)

In article <1992Apr15.034905.3366@cbnews.cb.att.com>, bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (SJ Roc D'Arcy, MBP) writes:

> Isn't what he described the plane called the Thundercheif (I'll have
> to look up the F number at home).  I beleive it was a late 50's
> design jet.  

I believe Thundercheif is F-105 and was a Vietnam era fighter bomber.  It has
one engin, and as matter of fact, it is the biggest singal engine fighter ever
built.  Swetp back wing design with a very interesting wing root (air intake)
no bootball at the wing tips (wonder what they were for, gas tank?)


SF
bvc
-- 
******************************************************************************
* #$!#$^%!^&%#%$^@#^#!$%%$#%$!^$&@*^#(&$()%&*%%&$^$#@$@#$#@^&$&^$&$^^%$#$%%# *
*----------------------------------------------------------------------------*
*                yuqian.bvc.edu		    the Suicidal Freshman            *
******************************************************************************
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Subject: Re:  Low Altitude Training
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 1992 00:29:01 GMT


From fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)

When you consider the weapons available now to the average
grunt NOE is the only way to go unless you are up at 20k ft.
If you do it right you can even nail a chopper with arty while
its in the air from a fistv.
Air Force plays in the mud all the time with the A-10's.ah64's
and the AH1's, even the 52h's come in low but not slow.
(The fast movers dont like to get the planes dirty by 
having to fly through smoke and all :-) )
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.belcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I DONT CARE IF I SOUND CONFUSED, I KNOW WHAT I MEAN !!!
From: woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk (Ian Woodrow)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Accidental ICBM launch
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:59:07 GMT
Organization: Glasgow University Computing Service


From woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk (Ian Woodrow)

In <1992Apr10.012952.7820@cbnews.cb.att.com> AGM106@psuvm.psu.edu writes:


>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?


I didn't hear about that, but it is doubtful.   I don't see the USSR keeping
quiet about that one in 1979 (Brezhnev era).  Too much good propaganda value.


-- 
W@@DY_______________________________________________________________________
 /Ian Woodrow, Computing Service, Uni of Glasgow, GLASGOW G12 8QQ, Scotland \
*  <Dog 'n' Bone:  041-330-4800         | e-mail: woody@udcf.gla.ac.uk>      *
 \__________ FAX:__041-330-4808_____________________________________________/
From: CFG435CNP@MGVAX.ULSTER.AC.UK
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: FC-47
Date: 11 Apr 92 00:32:15 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From CFG435CNP@MGVAX.ULSTER.AC.UK

George Patterson writes,

>The major function of the gun-ship is/was to attack ground targets, and
>the proper designation for such a plane is "A". The only question in
>my mind is why anyone in their right mind would call the AC-47 a "fighter"
>even temporarily.

	Opps, firstly apologies, the DC-3 was in fact a piston engined aircraft,
put that one down to pre-exam stress!!, secondly I quite agree with the above, 
what I had origionally written was meant in jest (notice the !!! after the
the origional piece)

				Thanks,
					PgC

	

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul G. Conlon - BSC4 - Applied Computing, Magee College, Univ. Ulster
CFG435CNP@uk.ac.ulster.mgvax
------
"Mental conception must be followed by immediate execution. This is a matter
of enegry and initiative" - GeneralFeldMarshall Erwin Rommel
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: jbaute@vnet3.vub.ac.be
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Incendiaries
Date: 10 Apr 92 23:55:44 GMT
Organization: AT&T


From jbaute@vnet3.vub.ac.be

As far as I know, the two most used military incendiaries are napalm and
thermite. I think you al know napalm; thermite is a mixture of
aluminumpowder and iron oxide powder.

Now, I've got a few questions :

1) Am I correct, or are there other (more efficient) incendiaries invented
lately ?

2) Which targets do you attack with napalm and which with thermite ? Are
there specific targets for thermite and napalm, or are they both general
purpose incendiaries ?

I don't expect a demolitian manual mailed to me (I wouldn't mind though)
but I'd love some background information on the use of these incendiaries.
I hope you can help me on this one.

Thanks in advance !

Jo Baute

jbaute@vnet3.vub.ac.be
Free University of Brussels, Belgium
From: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Mini-Gun question
Date: 17 Apr 92 01:28:29 GMT
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)


From fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)

You are not going to see a "man carry" minigun deployed in
any of the current calibers, those of you who have humped
a 60 know what I'm talking about.
maybe someone can fill in the blanks:
ammo 5k(basic load) =72lbs per 1680 rounds x3=216lbs (fm9-13pg134)
minigun (+50lbs ?) =+50 (w/motor ?)             50lbs
clothes (12lbs)                                12lbs
webgear/helmet/gasmask 12lbs +-                12lbs
                                            ________
                                              290lbs (about)
someone else is carrying the personal gear, oh yea the 
24 volt battery  20lbs sound right ?           20lbs
total                                          310lbs
and thats not counting the "camera mount" and I have heard
they are heavy. Might as well put wheels on the poor guy.
I'd love to see Arnold do a low crawl with that rig.
I do rember an air powered one that fired .22lr from a
four barrel tube fed from a ruck that was a throwaway
(all plastic) we played with in coronado in the 70's.
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.belcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I DONT CARE IF I SOUND CONFUSED, I KNOW WHAT I MEAN !!!
From: CBTCC%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Mini-Gun question
Date: 7 Apr 92 03:51:39 GMT
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center


From <CBTCC%CUNYVM.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu>

In article <1992Apr4.013348.13909@cbnews.cb.att.com>,
 sean@ms.uky.edu (Sean
Casey) says:
>
>I went to the machine gun shoot in Louisville KY. last year, and they
>were selling time on a GE 7.62mm minigun (100 rnds, $75).
>I was wondering what you'd use this for. Too small to put in an
>airplane. Mount it in a helicopter? APC?
>Sean

Ah, but it was mounted on an airplane.  The Cessna Dragonfly, a pretty
successful COIN aircraft, had one mounted on the right side of the fuselage
forward of the cockpit.  Saw it at an airshow near Kingston, NY.  The pilot,
disgusted at the way his tiny (they didn't name it Dragonfly for nothing)
was being ignored on favor of the high-profile fighters, flipped back the
cowling over the gun, and immediately began getting more attention.

The minigun was also mounted in helicopters as a doorgun & it was put on
river patrol boats.  But you're right about one thing.  It is kind of a good
weapon without a home.  It eats ammo so fast that you'd better have a very
storage area.  The same goes for the 5.56mm version.  Too large for an
infantry weapon, too small for most vehicles.

Chris