HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Patriot
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:04:04 GMT
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.


From dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)

viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
 >Based upon the short previews given, though, the big gripe
 >seems to be that the Patriot did not, in fact, intercept the
 >inbounds but instead merely exploded near them.  

Something like that...  The title at least was a little on the annoying 
side: "Patriot Missile: Hero or Hoax?", but they did have some valid
points.  The main "gripe" was that in quite a few examples, the Patriot 
"intercepts" did nothing to prevent the Scud *warheads* from hitting a
target on the ground.

 >Gee, and I thought nearly all anti-air missiles did this.  
 >Last I heard, it is much more likely to disable or destroy an 
 >inbound if you explode near it and send chunkies into its vital 
 >areas than if you try to actually hit the thing and then explode.

Absolutely, for AIRCRAFT... which (of course), is exactly what 
the Patriot Missile system was designed for in the first place.

However... merely exploding "near" a Scud in it's terminal phase is not 
particularly effective.  It takes an almost direct hit on the warhead for 
it to explode in the AIR, and not on the ground the way it was intended.
The best example shown was war footage of a single inbound Scud being 
hit by *multiple* Patriots, but with the warhead continuing on unimpeded.

On the other side, they did at least show how rapidly the PAC-2 and other
upgrades were delivered to the Gulf in time to make an important contribution.
The simple fact is, you are a hell of a lot better off WITH a Patriot battery
protecting you than without one... but it wasn't quite as "perfect" as some
wartime reports (same "media" of course :), made it appear.  

One problem they highlighted was the tendency of the Scuds to break up upon 
reentry.  That results in multiple targets for the Patriot to choose from, 
while it is mainly the warhead section which really must be intercepted.
Considering how the anti-missile role was a brand-new function for the 
Patriot, i'd say it performed pretty well.  However, that does not mean
there isn't room for improvement, or a follow-on system intented more for 
missile intercepts.

-{ Dean Adams }-
From: mjd@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Mark-Jason Dominus)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Did sixteenth-century sailors discard cargo?
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:59:18 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


From mjd@saul.cis.upenn.edu (Mark-Jason Dominus)



    In _The Defeat of the Spanish Armada_, Mattingly tells
of a Spanish carrack, heavily loaded with a rich cargo,
captured by Sir Francis Drake . He says, ``her main deck was
too crammed with merchandise for her gun-ports to be used.''

    There were other reasons why the carrack surrendered
without a serious fight, but it seems as though under some
circumstances a captain might choose to throw some of the
cargo overboard to get it out of the way.  Did this ever
happen?

--

                And for to se, and eek for to be seye
Mark-Jason Dominus 	  			    mjd@central.cis.upenn.edu 
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: esmythe@atl.ge.com (Erich J Smythe)
Subject: Re: Anti-Patriot media is at it again
Organization: GE Aerospace, Advanced Technology Labs
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:41:27 GMT


From esmythe@atl.ge.com (Erich J Smythe)

In article <BvCC2D.3tw@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> thedemon@world.std.com (Dan C Duval) writes:
>
[some deleted ...]
>
>My conclusion after watching the program: any system that lets a functional
>warhead through even after three "hits" (according to Raytheon) is at best
>a qualified success. On top of this, it doesn't matter to me if I'm hit by
>an active warhead or or by 1000 lbs of debris traveling just under the
>speed of sound. If the warhead contains (contained) chemical or biological
>agents, I'm probably still screwed when the debris arrives. The only time
>it appears that the debris is a better choice is when the missile was
>carrying a nuclear weapon, when I might be willing to give a Patriot its
>40%+ shot rather than do nothing at all.

Whether it is a success or not depends on the mission.  If the mission
of the Patriot was to keep the warhead from detonating in a specified
target area, and it blew up somewhere else, that _could_ be called a
success.  Remember that the Patriot was not designed to protect large
cities from Ballistic Missiles - an area the size of an airfield is
closer to its original purpose (it was down with a s/w problem when it
was called to do just that, check the archives here and in comp.risks
for discussions on the "clock drift" problem). My conclusion is that
in many cases, the engagement was outside of the original envelope of
the system.

>In terms of efficiency, exchanging three Patriots for one Scud is a losing
>proposition, when each Patriot lauching costs more than the launching of a
>Scud (I do hope you are including the radars, launchers, crews. etc when
>computing the cost of a launch.) This exchange rate might be fine for a war
>of attrition with a third-rate power, but loses when your enemy has equal or
>greater resources in the theater of operations or can force the Patriots to
>be scattered out over a large area of protection.

I truly hope that military commanders and civilian authorities never
use this formula to determine tradeoffs.  You don't base a cost
tradeoff on the cost_of_the_threat vs. cost_of_the_defense ratio.  You
look at what is being threatened.  A $1,000,000 defensive weapon
against a $1 threat is hardly a losing proposition if the threat can
destroy a city.  When lives are at stake, purely dollar tradeoffs
become even less defensible.

>
>Dan C Duval
>thedemon@world.std.com

-erich


-- 
Erich Smythe                                 esmythe@atl.ge.com
GE Advanced Technology Labs
Moorestown, NJ.
From: ins894r@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Aaron Wigley [Wigs])
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Patriot
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:34:16 GMT
Organization: Monash University


From ins894r@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Aaron Wigley [Wigs])

Dean Adams (dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu) wrote:
: One problem they highlighted was the tendency of the Scuds to break up upon 
: reentry.  That results in multiple targets for the Patriot to choose from, 
: while it is mainly the warhead section which really must be intercepted.

So, the operators at the time had the choice:
	Fire off heaps of Patriots targeting each part of the broken
    up Scud, which is costly (how much is a Patriot missile?). Or,
	Fire off one Patriot, and the operators targeted the warhead only,
    which is what was eventually done so I was lead to believe.

The problem with the second option is, you still have the engine, and 
midsection, both weighing several tonnes coming down at an excessive speed,
and hitting residential regions (as what happened in Tel Aviv.)

: -{ Dean Adams }-

The Wigs of Oz,
Aaron Wigley
ins894r@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au
From: gavin.adams@lso.mts.dec.com (Gavin Adams)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Star Wars Defense System
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:28:20 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation


From Gavin Adams <gavin.adams@lso.mts.dec.com>

In article <BvAsD1.AAv@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Frank Crary,
fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU writes:
>Actually, neutral particle beams are a real (theoretically real, that is)
>weapons system. More exactly, it would be usefull to neutralize a 
>charged particle beam (i.e. to eliminate the beam spreading and
>the effects of the Earth's magnetic fields.) I think the idea is
>to mix a proton and an electron beam, and allow recombination into
>high velocity neutral hydrogen. As far as I know, however, this idea
>is purely theoretical, and the article Mr. D'Arcy was replying to was
>(as he points out) purely fiction. (Russian anti-satellite weapons,
>however, might be a different matter...)
>
>                                          Frank Crary
>                                          CU Boulder

Neutral particle beams (NPB) are real, at least in accelerator research.  A
lab I used to work for was doing particle accelerator research, with our main
project being an NPB accelerator.  Using such a device as a discriminator for
incoming ballistic warheads, it would feed data to ground ABM sites. 

Of course, with budget cuts, this is becoming a "technology base", and
probably won't be deployed.

--- Gavin
Visualize Whirled Peas!
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Sweden attacks sub
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:39:14 GMT
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden


From eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)

nv89-pla@nada.kth.se (Peter Laan) writes:


>From nv89-pla@nada.kth.se (Peter Laan)



>The torpedoe used was an Italian 'White Head'. Could someone post
>some info on the torpedoe?

"Whitehead" is the company producing the torpedo.
--
Erik Svensson			Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division		National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm			Sweden

net.address: 	eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"I've got LOT's of common sense. I just choose to ignore it." -- Calvin
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "A.J.S. Nusbacher" <aryk@utcs.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: Anti-Patriot media is at it again
Organization: University of Toronto -- Office of the Provost
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:31:34 GMT


From "A.J.S. Nusbacher" <aryk@utcs.utoronto.ca>


The use of Scuds against Israel was clearly meant to demoralise the
population and incite the Israelis to offensive action.  The presence of
Patriot batteries, and their success rate (such as it was) compared with
the previous lack of any defence caused an impressive improvement in
Israeli civilian morale.

And the Israeli government refrained from offensive action.

Result:  With respect to the Israeli theatre, the Patriots, once deployed,
were entirely successful in their mission.

Aryk Nusbacher

University College
President's Commission on the Health Sciences, University of Toronto

Views expressed are personal.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
Subject: Re: National Reconnaissance Office Redux
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:24:49 GMT


From merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)

In article <...> baldwin@csservera.usna.navy.mil (J.D. Baldwin) writes:
>Even the name--National Reconnaissance Office--was sensitive,
>compartmented information before that, classified "Top Secret TK."
>TK, for Talent Keyhole, is the basic level of classification for
>satellite data.

Wow!  Golly!  Geesh!  Shucks!  ...and I always thought Talent Keyhole
was merely a semi public designator for a particular satellite source
of medium resolution earth images ...it seems astounding to learn our
people relied for so many years on a publically busted designator for
the security of all satellite data--optical & otherwise.  Remarkable!


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: GORDON@UKCEVM1.VNET.IBM.COM (Gordon C Smith, IBM Greenford, UK.)
Subject: View at Fressno/Van Neuys
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:51:53 GMT


From GORDON@UKCEVM1.VNET.IBM.COM (Gordon C Smith, IBM Greenford, UK.)

 I am taking a short trip to California next month and wonder if anyone
can tell me... Is it possible to view/photograph any of the military
air activity at Fresno and/or Van Neuys (sp?)? Are there any good spots
to view the ramp or the approach at these fields?
Cheers, Gordon


Disclaimer: Any opinion detected in this posting is not that of IBM.
News-Software: Usenet 3.0
X-X-From: Gordon Smith


Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Saturday, 26 September, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:35:32 GMT


From military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)

Saturday, 26 September, 1942

German troops push to the Volga in central Stalingrad.

Eleven RAF fighters are lost due to icing during a high-altitude sweep
over France.

The second ship of the new Essex class of fleet carriers is launched.  She
is named USS Lexington, in honor of her namesake sunk in May.

Wendell Willkie speaks from Moscow, calling for the immediate opening of a
second front against Germany.

References:
C.Argyle, _Chronology of World War II_
R.Dupuy and T.Dupuy, _The Encyclopedia of Military History_
R.Goralski, _World War II Almanac, 1931-1945_
J.Keegan, ed., _The Times Atlas of the Second World War_
C.Messenger, _Atlas of World War Two_
J.Piekalkiewicz, _Tank War 1939-1940_
J.Rowher and G. Hummelchen, _Chronology of the War at Sea 1939-1945_
Royal Institute of International Affairs, _Chronology of the Second 
	World War_
C.Salmaggi and A.Pallavisini, _2194 Days of War_
Brig. P.Young, _The World Almanac of World War II_
The New York Times, daily editions
Time magazine
Newsweek

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker			            military@att.att.com
Send submissions for "50 Years Ago" to military-request@att.att.com

"Next Summer may be too late." - Wendell Willkie
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
Subject: Performance of Greek armour against Persian arrows.
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:45:41 GMT


From anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)


I have a book on the weapons and armour of Greeks and Romans.
One picture is supposed to illustrate the last stand of the
Spartans against the Persians.  In the picture, one of the 
Greek soldier is killed by an arrow which penetrate his front
armour.  My question, is that wishful thinking on the part of 
the artist ?  Would the arrows and bows used by the Persians in
7th century BC sufficient to penetrate the front armour of
a typical Greek soldier of the time ?
--
Anthony Lee (Time Lord Doctor) (These are my opinions !)
email: anthony@cs.uq.oz.au	voice:+(61)-7-3651204 FAX:+(61)-7-3651999
SNAIL: Department Computer Science, The University of Queensland, 
       St Lucia, Qld 4072, Australia

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:50:07 GMT


From BROEKHVN@QUCDN.QueensU.CA

In article <BvE5rp.2sy@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, tomas_e@LINK.Physchem.KTH.SE
(Tomas Eriksson) says:
>
>
>A nuclear reactor would give these subs an endurance far beyond what one
>would expect of a submarine this size. Indeed, there are indications
>that the intruders have gone into hiding for a several days when the ASW
>activities have been intensive. Usually, Swedish submarines are on
>patrol much longer than surface vessels after a ASW action has been
>called off. If nothing else, they can listen to the intruders when they
>leave.
>-
>Tomas Eriksson
>tomas_e@physchem.kth.se
>            Surface Force Group, Department of Physical Chemistry,
>               Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
>

If a sub "went to ground" on the bottom, couldn't it be found by
sonar or the thermals coming off the nuclear power plant?  The an-echoic
coating on a sub is great if the
background is the ocean deep (no return), but against the background
of a shallow bottom, wouldn't the sub show up as an unnatural "dark
spot"?  Don't surface ASW ships have the ability to just grid off
a region, and run the sound through a signal transform that would make
the sub show up like a sore thumb?  I would have thought this kind of
signal processing would be implemented in hardware on an ASW combatant, but
if that's not feasable, couldn't the information be transmitted to
a land-based super computing site that could do the necessary
computation in real time?

Does the U.S. have such a computing capability in place?  Would they provide
this service to a foreign military such as Sweden?  If the U.S. is having
problems funding "black" projects such as sattelite reconaissance could
they recoup costs by providing high technology military reconaissance
for a fee to friendly countries?

The downside would include letting the "friendlies" know just how good the
technology was;  the "unfriendlies" would also get a clue as
to its efficacy by watching how the ally used the U.S. provided capability.
The upside would be that additional funding might make continued existance
of such capabilities possible.

Kevin Broekhoven                       Applications Programmer
Computing Services                     Queens University K7L-3N6
Bitnet, NetNorth: BROEKHVN at QUCDN    IP: kevin@ccs.QueensU.CA (130.15.48.9)
X.400: Kevin.Broekhoven@QueensU.CA     Bell: (613)545-2235 fax: 545-6798

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ins894r@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Aaron Wigley [Wigs])
Subject: News Report: USA missiles hit Turkish destroyer
Organization: Monash University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:55:24 GMT


From ins894r@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Aaron Wigley [Wigs])

This made front page news on the local newspaper, the 'Herald-Sun',
here in Melbourne. It is the late edition.

Disclaimer: I a in no way connected with the publishers of the Herald-Sun,
and the views presented here are not my opinion, only those of the 
newspapers:

"
		MISSILES HIT SHIP
	by Niki Savva in Washington

	Two missiles from an American aircraft carrier hit a Turkish
  destroyer during a NATO exercise today.

	The missiles set the destroyer ablaze and killed at least seven
  crewmen, Pentagon officials said in Washington.

	Initial reports indicated at least 15 others on the Turkish ship.
	
	A Pentagon spokeswoman Major Katherine Ingram, said there were no
  reports of US casualties.

	The carrier, the Saratoga, launched two Sea Sparrow missiles and 
  apparently hit the Turkish destryoer with both, officials said.

	Major Ingram said one hit the Turkish destroyer's bridge.

	A fire broke out but was extinguished in 15 mintues, the
  spokeswoman said.

	Saratoga crewmen were dropped onto the stricken ship by helicopter
  to help with the rescue.

	A multinational contingent of ships in the region also rushed to
  the destroyer.

	The Turkish ship was not immediatly identified, and it was not known
  how many crew it was carrying.

	Major Ingram said the accident occured about midnight local time
  (*am today) in the Aegean Sea, an arm of the Mediteranean between Turkey
  and Greece.

	The US and Turkish ships were about 5km apart at the time.

	"It was an accidental launching," she said.

	Both ships were taking part in "Display Determination," an annual
  NATO excercise involving ships from the southern NATO region.

	The exercise usually involves the US, Turkey, Greece and Italy.

	The 324-metre Saratoga is a conventionally-powered aircraft carrier 
  commisioned in 1956. It was amongst the first class of carriers designed
  specifically to launch jet aircraft.

" end of article.

No pictures accompanied the article.


The Wigs of Oz,
Aaron Wigley
From: ooi@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Jeffrey K Ooi)
Subject: Re : How good is the Mig-29 VS the F16/F18 ?
Organization: Comp Sci, La Trobe Uni, Australia
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:47:30 GMT


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

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

1) it flies as slowly as 160km/r(99mph) - the speed of a cloth covered Piper cub
2) It's maximum speed is Mach 2.5 ( the f-16 : Mach 2 )  
3) It can withstand turning forces of 10-11g (american jets can on average take
    only 9g before they lose engines )
4) The Mig-29 can 'flip-up' in combat for a brief period, an angle of 80 degrees   to sight a target well above it's target window.
5) The western planes have long range superiority but at dogfight level the
  the planes are about equal
6) The aircraft weighs about 14,515kg and needs only 305m of runway for takeoff
   ( the f16 needs 366m )
7) about cost? The American fire control computers are very expensive compared
   to their russian counterparts...The Mig-29 uses a $50 device with a pair
   of infra-red emitters that simply clamps onto a normal helmet.
   The infra-red beams are reflected of mirrors mounted in the cockpit to           measure the pilot's head angle with surprisingly accurate precision - 
   the pilot can slue his fire-control system 60 degrees just by looking at the    target.
8) If the mig goes out of control, or the pilot becomes disoriented, all the 
pilot has to do is hit a panic button   and the computer brings prompt, 
automatic recovery.

9) there are problems, however, The engines eat up so much fuel that the plane
   can only remain on station less than 2 hours -without i/f refuelling - but
   still a short time compared to western fighters.

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

-- 
  Jeffrey (George bush) Ooi |  Tried a Big Sadist from McWhitehouse?          
  Latrobe University        |  Two Hussien patties special scud, patriots
  Australia                 |  sleeze, toma-hawks, inside a sesame seed bomb
From: ganglia.megatek!rstewart@uunet.UU.NET (Rich Stewart)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Anti-Patriot media is at it again
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:28:53 GMT
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California


From ganglia.megatek!rstewart@uunet.UU.NET (Rich Stewart)

In article <BvArGq.91I@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson) writes:
>
>
>Hello.
>
>	I was unable to watch the show in question, but on A&E
>
>	Based upon the short previews given, though, the big gripe
>seems to be that the Patriot did not, in fact, intercept the
>inbounds but instead merely exploded near them.  Gee, and I thought

I think the big problem here is that people are comparing the patriot
against the SCUD. For this task it is less than useful. Why? Because
the SCUD very inaccurate. It can hit a city, but not specific target 
within the city. If the patriot cuts a missle in half, over that same
city, and the warhead blows on impact, the same random damage is done.
So, no effect by the patriot.

Now, if a patriot cuts a cruise missle in half over a city, and the missle
is targeted to a specific communications center it is a different story.
In this case the patriot has defeated the deadly accuracy of the cruise missle, and turned it into a warhead falling on some random place in the city.
The same argument goes for a patriot cutting a plane in half.

So, everyone is right, and we can now quit arguing about this....
-Rich
rstewart@megatek.com
Newsgroups: sci.military