HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: A Few Good Men F14  (& Fidel)
From: byrnes@cbr.hhcs.gov.au
Date: 11 Jan 93 17:45:24 +1000
Distribution: world
Organization: Aust. Dept. Health, Housing and Community Services
Keywords: F14 CUBA GUANTANAMO FIDEL HOLLYWOOD
Summary: Gitmo and Hollywood, and Fidel's arsenal

In article <1993Jan10.153635.11321@wyvern.twuug.com>, dconk@wyvern.twuug.com (Don Conklin) writes:
> 
> The F14's seen in the movie "A Few Good Men" were filmed at NAS Fallon
> Nevada. The tail codes indicated they were based at NAS Point Mugu
> California. There are no F14's based at NAS Guantanamo Bay ("Gitmo"), just
> TA-4J's used for fleet training exercises.
> 

This is contrary to a few earlier posts, that claimed f14's did occassionally
put into Gitmo when their carriers were in port, for example. 

It begs me to ask though: were any parts of the movie filmed in the Gitmo base
at all? Has anyone been there, and did they recognise anything of the base in
the movie? Or is AFGM just another Hollywood cop-out when it comes to
military authenticity.

BTW: I suspected it all along that it was unlikely that F14's would be on the
tarmac at Gitmo. Why waste the firepower? After all, what has Fidel got that
could pose any threat to anything in the US arsenal. I bet Cuba never got the
chance to get its hands on any really decent Soviet hardware of any sort...


-- 

||  Steven Byrne						             ||
||  Housing and Urban Policy Branch                                          ||
||  Department of Health Housing and Community Services                      ||
||  CANBERRA AUSTRALIA                                                       ||
                                                           
||  Internet: BYRNES@CBR.HHCS.GOV.AU                                         ||
||  Compu$erve: 100033,1506                                                  ||
From: prince@fund.omsk.su (Rustam Kh. Yusupov)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Secret German airstrip in Russia in 1942
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 12:54:09 +0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Omsk Property Fund
Reply-To: prince@fund.omsk.su

Two fighters Pe-3(commanders: lt.Ustimenko and lt.Gorbuntsov,navigator:
lt.Bantsev and passanger: chief of headquarters of Belomor airgroup of
North fleet col.Popov) take-off from airstrip "Yagodnick" (nearest
Arkhangelsk at the early morning at 5 November 1942. Point of destination-
Navy base at Novaya Zemlya (New Land).
Fighters disappeared.

46 years later the fragments of one of them was finding in tundra.
First view said about crash at the emergency landing.The plane was in
the bullet hoyles.
LuftWaffe fighters nearest Arkhangelsk at 1942 ?

In Jule 1989 at the airphoto-recognizing was finded old airstrip
nearest Okulovo lake at the Arkhangelsk district.
 Examinaition was testify : it is German airstrip.
The cover of airstrip from Rur steel plates. Barells with German marks.
Old hunters said about German soldiers.

Does anybody knows about another secret  German airstrip or airbases
in USSR at WWII ?


Rustam Yusupov
Property Fund of Omsk
prince@fund.omsk.su
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: AMERICAN KILL...
Date: 4 Jan 93 06:17:00 GMT
Distribution: world
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins) 

-> In article <1459.417.uupcb@the-matrix.com>
-> rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky So, the Navy has converted to
-> F-16s eh. Must have been a blast trying to teach those young hotshot
-> Air Force pukes to land their Falcons on a carrier deck. Especially
-> without a naval type tail hook. <grin>

-> Let's get this right.  Navy and Marine Corps people don't call USAF
-> folks pukes -- that would be ingracious.  They're slimes! :)

I was an Army brat. We were taught that the proper term of respect was
"puke".
                                        Rocky
From: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: RE: WAS RADAR'S IMPACT ON
Date: 10 Jan 93 21:21:00 GMT
Reply-To: rocky.rawlins@the-matrix.com (Rocky Rawlins)
Organization: The MATRIX BBS - Birmingham, AL - 205-323-2016

-> I have to disagree with your disagreement.  If the Luftwaffe had
-> destroyed the RAF they would have had air superiority.  Air
-> superiority does not automatically imply control of the channel.
-> Destroyers and cruisers, using wakes along, could have caused
-> catastrophic casualties among the German invasio forces.  The Germans
-> had to have control of the channel to invade England.
-> It should be noted the the Repulse and the Prince of Wales were sunk
-> in broad daylight, and had no other escorts with them.  Two ships
-> sunk in good conditions does not extrapolate to sinking hundreds of
-> ships in the dark.
-> This would make an interesting war game, wouldn't it?

Actually it is several sessions of wargaming of this scenario on which I
based my disagreement. We played out the BOB with emphasis on RAF
destruction and were able to essentially eliminate the RAF as a viable
opposition. Admittedly, we shifted some resources and then allocated
aircraft differently than the Germans did or probably would have. We
later concentrated on Port facilities and shipping support. It was
possible to easily push the Royal Navy out of the Channel and other
Eastern ports and force then into the Western ports and North Atlantic
area. With choke points at the north and south end of the channel and a
significant number of aircraft essentially on call all the time within
quick reach of either choke point, every time a sortie was attempted,
round the clock air attacks either drove them out or provided some new
artificial reefs for the fishies. A level bomber is not particularly
effective against shipping but LOTS and LOTS of level bombers CAN get
the job done if you work at it long enough. The results were suspect so
we replayed the scenario and halved the effectiveness of the level
bombers based on historical records and doubled the effectiveness of
ship based AA and though the aircraft losses were extreme, the final
outcome was the same....... the invasion fleet was unhindered by the
Royal Navy. London fell within a month after the landings in the South.

It would have fallen sooner but a lot of aircraft were lost in the
campaign to reduce the Royal Navy and a lot were unavailable for ground
support because they were allocated to Naval Suppression.

                                         Rocky
                                                                                                         
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: F-86 question...
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
	<1992Dec24.204310.25269@ringer.cs.utsa.edu>
Distribution: rec
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 21:06:04 GMT

In article <1992Dec24.204310.25269@ringer.cs.utsa.edu> thughes@lonestar.utsa.edu (Toby . Hughes) writes:

>In article <BOWERS.92Dec24111553@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov> bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers) writes:

>>Just who was the high scoring ace in F-86s?  I have seen info that
>>says it was Major James Jabara (16.5) and other sources claim it was
>>Captain Joseph McConnell (16).

>It's not so much a controversy as a bookkeeping thing.  Jabara's total
>of 16.5 includes 1.5 scored in WWII.  His 15 in Korea put him one
>behind Joe McConnell for top honors in that war.

Ah!  Thanks guys.

>BTW, Jabara WAS the first Korea ace, and if memory serves, was also
>the pilot involved in history's first all-sweptwing encounter.

I also read that in Fred Blesse's book "Check Six".  I was wondering
what the story was, as Blesse never again mentions Jabara, but he
talks of McConnell.

I guess it was an odd bookkeeping thing related to the American Ace
List I have (from the American Fighter Aces Association).  It
seperates WWI and Vietnam, but it lumps Korea and WWII together.  It
also shows Col Robin Olds as having a total of 16.  I know Olds got 4
in Vietnam, but I thought he did only ground attack in Korea and had
only 8 from WWII?  Did Olds get 4 in Korea?  Or did I confuse
something again?

I wonder who the all-time jet ace is.  I know Major Walter Nowotny
only had 8 in the Me 262 (total of 258), and I know that Leutnant
Rudolf Rademacher had a total of 8 for the month of February 1945 in
an Me 262.  Col Toon of the NVAF was reputed to have had 17 total
during Vietnam...

--
Al Bowers                       bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle, Lead Aero
NASA, Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, California
From: gopal@cirrus.com (Gopal Ramachandran)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: Looking for old USAF silk maps
Date: 5 Jan 93 21:42:57 GMT
Organization: Cirrus Logic Inc.

In article <1992Dec31.190114.10805@news.uiowa.edu> sandro@lhc.nlm.nih.gov (Michael D'Alessandro) writes:
>As a child, I remember buying at a surplus store several beautiful silk  
>USAF maps that portrayed different parts of the world, all dating from the  
>50's.  The maps folded into a wallet sized packet, and apparently were  
>used by USAF personnel.
>
>I'd like to know if anyone knows where I can get more of these types of  
>maps today - does anyone know of any surplus stores or catalog houses  
>selling such maps?

Yes. I have a catalog in front of me from Aviator's World in Mojave CA
which has several silk maps for sale ($35 to $65 is the range). All
are 1:1000000 scale and depict mostly Pacific locations (China, Japan,
Phillipines, New Guinea, etc). There's one for N. Africa. Their number
is 805-824-2424. Their FAX # is 805-824-2723.

Gopal



-- 

Gopal Ramachandran <gopal@cirrus.com>
UUCP:  uunet!cirrus.com!gopal
Cirrus Logic Inc, Fremont CA  PH: (510)-226-2138 FAX: (510)-226-2160
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Al Bowers)
Subject: Re: Aurora
Organization: NASA Dryden, Edwards, Cal.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 22:39:33 GMT

In article <1hammgINN7nr@pollux.usc.edu> suhler@pollux.usc.edu (Paul Suhler) writes:

>In article <8079@tekig7.PEN.TEK.COM> drchambe@tekig5.pen.tek.com writes:

>>Can you verify this? I followed the shuttle introduction in AWST rather 
>>closely, and saw no mention of ejection seats. I do remember a lengthy 
>...
>>Also Gemini. I recall no ejection seats, and in the Smithsonian display I
>>noticed no provision for them.

>The first few shuttle flights definitely had ejection seats.  I still
>remember hearing the "Negative Seat" advisory from the ground when
>they got too fast (or whatever the criterion was) to use them.

I found the reference.  It is contained in NTIS report 82A33303.
Title is "Safety Aboard the Shuttle", by G. L. Borrowman.  The
pertinent info (from the abstract) is:

"...Once the D-ring beneath the seat is pulled, the rest of the
ejection sequence is automatic, and egress is possible at speeds up to
Mach 2.7 and altitudes of 80,000 ft..."

Falls a bit short of the capability of the SR-71 seat and the seats
used in the X-15...

I'm still looking for the Gemini report...

--
Al Bowers                       bowers@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov
NASA F-18 High Alpha Research Vehicle, Lead Aero
NASA, Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, California
From: gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us (Gene A. Kennedy)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: A FEW GOOD MEN AND F14'S
Keywords: F14 CUBA US NAVY
Date: Sat, 09 Jan 93 23:52:58 CST
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.

jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop) writes:

> In article <1993Jan7.094133@usho72.hou281.chevron.com> hhtra@usho72.hou281.ch
> >
> >  Quite common, I would think.  The Dallas NAS is several hundred miles
> >  from any significant body of water yet F14s are stationed there.
> >
> The only difference is that NAS Dallas is a Naval Reserve training
> base.  Gitmo is Regular Navy.  When a carrier is in port, the air
> wing normally deploys to land bases and it is possible that a some
> of the aircraft will be on cross country training missions.

 Doesn't anyone remember that Gitmo also has the Airlant gunnery 
range located there. It's been there since some time in the 50s at 
least.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
          Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI - 
                      gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: pierre@synopsys.com (Pierre Wildman)
Subject: F-22 Question
Followup-To: rec.aviation.military
Organization: Synopsys
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 22:59:04 GMT

Can anyone tell me the date of the F-22 prototype's
unfortunate demise?  Also, does anyone have a lead
on where I could get the video footage of the "landing"?

Thanks in advance.  Please email response.

Pierre Wildman
Seneca N29461
From: ubte30e@ucl.ac.uk (Mr R Burton-west)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re: KC-10 Tankers for SR-71????? and quick Book Review
Date: 12 Jan 93 17:50:56 GMT
Organization: Bloomsbury Computing Consortium

If you like Payne Harrison's first book, for goodness' sake stay clear
of his second (Thunder of Erebus).  About the same level of characterisation,
but some of the tech is SILLY!  (Especially the "major plot device"...




SPOILER! 




which is a submarine-launched anti-carrier missile, with EIGHT (count 'em
EIGHT) separate propulsion modes!  Hurm.

Roger
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: Andrew.Brooks@launchpad.unc.edu (Andrew Brooks)
Subject: Re: F-22 Question
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 12:47:40 GMT

In article <pierre-080193145737@mac-28.43.synopsys.com> pierre@synopsys.com (Pierre Wildman) writes:
>Can anyone tell me the date of the F-22 prototype's
>unfortunate demise?  Also, does anyone have a lead
>on where I could get the video footage of the "landing"?

Speaking of which, I borrowed a video on the XB-70 yesterday and it
only contained footage of the crash site of XB-70-A2 and not of the
collision itself.  However, I seem to remember people mentioning
having seen this particular footage.  Does this footage exist?
If so, is its availability restricted?  One would think that an
aviation video on the Valkyrie would have included it if it were
available.
--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: jem3@pyuxf.uucp (25312-mc killop)
Subject: Re: P51s are Shiny Metal
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 93 20:31:17 GMT

In article <1i9otoINNi6t@transfer.stratus.com> kvk@questor.sw.stratus.com (Ken Koellner) writes:
>
>On the topic of WWII fighters.  I always see p51s (in movies,
>documentaries, models, pictures, museums, etc.) with an unpainted,
>polished metal finish.  Most other fighter planes of that era, appear
>painted (I seem to remember seeing some p-38s and p-47s shiny though).
>Most of the navel planes are painted blue which makes sense.  A lot of
>the fighters (p-40, spit, etc) are painted though.  Does anyone know
>the criteria they used for deciding whether to paint a plane and what
>color?

The criteria was camouflage.  During WWII the intial camouflage for
USAAF combat aircraft was matte brown and matte green on the upper 
surfaces and light matte gray on the lower surfaces.  The theory was 
that the green/brown camouflage on the upper surfaces would cause the
aircraft to "disappear" when it was on the ground or flying above
the ground;  the gray was so the aircraft would "disappear" when
seen from below.  All aircraft were painted by the manufacturer as
part of the contract to build the aircraft.  Sometime in late 1942, 
it was decided to change the upper camouflage to just plain matte green 
(more commonly known as OD or olive drab).  There were actually two 
different shades of green used, one for aircraft based in England and 
the other for aircraft used in the rest of the world.  There were also 
exceptions to these rules, e.g., night fighters were painted gloss 
black and then there was a brief adventure with sand colored aircraft 
in North Africa.

As the war progressed, the USAAF gained air supremecy in both
Europe and the Pacific and it was decided to do away with
camouflage paint because it really wasn't needed (very few attacks
on our bases) and just added weight and maintenance to the aircraft.
So sometime in late 1943 or early 1944, the manufacturers were 
instructed to stop painting the aircraft and deliver them
unpainted, i.e., natural metal.


The USN/USMC did not eliminate camouflage during the war.  In 1939,
the Navy applied their first camouflage paint to combat aircraft, a
matte light gray.  Sometime in 1940 or 1941, the scheme was changed to 
a matte tri-color scheme with sea blue on all surfaces seen from
above, a light blue down the middle of the fuselage and white
undersurfaces.  In 1944 or 1945 this was changed to a gloss dark
blue on all Navy aircraft and this scheme was used to about 1956 or
1957.
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: dnadams@nyx.cs.du.edu (Dean Adams)
Subject: Re: KC-10 Tankers for SR-71????? and quick Book Review
Organization: University of Denver, Dept. of Math & Comp. Sci.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 93 13:21:27 GMT


v111qheg@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (P.VASILION) writes:
 >cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo) writes...
 >>...the book was discussing a SR-71 flight deep over russia.  In mentioning
 >>refuelling, the KC-10 was the tanker.  I thought only KC-135Q's were used.

The Qs were the ones based out of Beale and dedicated to SR-71 support.

 >Were some KC-10's also committed to JP7???

No, but it is still not impossible for them to carry JP-7.  Since this
book was *fiction*, I wouldn't worry too much about it though.  :-)

 >As of August 1992, no KC-10's have been converted to carry JP-7.

Make that no KC-10s have been converted to BURN JP-7 (why would they be?).

 >The KC-135Q is the only aircraft capable of delivering the light oil
 >that the SR-71 burns.  This from AF Colonel who is DO for 101st FIW.

Sorry, that is not correct.  For one thing, when the 9th SRW went out of the 
SR-71 business, most or all of the KC-135Qs were *retired* since they were 
the oldest in the fleet (converted A models).  What set them apart most from
other tankers is that the Q's engines could run off JP-7.  With their high
priority worldwide operations, this provided an important safety margin.

However, any standard KC-135 or KC-10 is capable of loading up with JP-7
and delivering it to a thirsty Blackbird.  That is exactly what has been
happening at NASA, since they rely on the AF's regular old tankers in use
at Edwards AFB to support their SR-71 operations.

-dean
From: urf@icl.se (Urban F)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Missile range and altitude
Date: 7 Jan 93 20:29:51 GMT
Organization: None. On USENET I speak only for myself.
X-Alt.reply-Address: n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk

I've just read a book by the aviation photographer and journalist
Peter Liander, _Flygande f|rsvarare_ and is about all the types of
military aircraft now in service in Sweden.

In the chapter about air-to-air combat, he mention the method of
launching an IR missile without prior lock on, in the hope it
will lock on after launch "but this method is very uncertain and
is used only under special circumstances".

He also quotes some typical missile ranges, and is careful to
point out that missile range is highly dependent on relative
angles and velocities of launcher and target, but he does not
specify in which cases these examples apply, so we'll just take
them as examples of how range varies with altitude.

                           Low altitude            High altitude
Rb 24B  Sidewinder AIM-9B
Rb 24J  Sidewinder AIM-9J  about 1000 m            slightly more than 3000 m
   Can be fired at both shorter and longer ranges than AIM-9B, and can
   also handle more agile targets.
Rb 27   Falcon AIM-26B     about 2 km              more than 8 km
Rb 28   Falcon AIM-4C
   Handles longer ranges and higher altitudes than Sidewinder.
Rb 71   SkyFlash           a couple of km          well over 10 km
Rb 74   Sidewinder AIM-9L
   Can be fired at even shorter ranges and more extreme angles than
   AIM-9J, as well as handle even more agile targets.

(Note: I'm quoting straight out of the book, and am neither
confirming nor denying any facts whatsoever.)
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
From: cid@athena.mit.edu (Derek H Cedillo)
Subject: KC-10 Tankers for SR-71????? and quick Book Review
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Sat, 9 Jan 1993 16:37:32 GMT

I was recently reading a book, one of
those techno-military books of tom clancy fame
(Him and Stephen Coonts worked with the author, Harrison Payne)
and in any case, the book was discussing
a SR-71 flight deep over russia.  In mentioning
refuelling, the KC-10 was the tanker.  I thought only KC-135Q's
were used.  Were some KC-10's also committed to JP7???
Anyway, the book is "Storming Intrepid" and is really good otherwise.
I would recomend it (although this KC-10 thing has me wondering)
to everyone. 

Summary:  The Russians Shuttle program sucks, they decide to capture an 
American shuttle with SDI payload to get a double bonus, and all kinds of 
interesting things happen. If you like military fiction like Tom Clancy, 
this is at about the level of his work.





Derek
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"He lived a life of going-to-do, 
   and died with nothing done"	       
		-J. Albery	     

In other words---JUST DO IT!
From: prince@fund.omsk.su (Rustam Kh. Yusupov)
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.military
Subject: Re:Re: Best fighterpilot ?!?!
Date: Thu, 07 Jan 93 15:46:46 +0500
Distribution: world
Organization: Omsk Property Fund
Reply-To: prince@fund.omsk.su

Michael Corvin write:
>   There were a number of Soviet aces with over 100 kills too, I believe.
>   Unfortunately, few details about these aces are known in the west (does
>   anyone know of good books about any of them?)
 Vladimir Kojedub - 62 enemy planes.
 ( I-16, La-5, La-5FN, La-7)
 Alexander Pokryshkin - 59 enemy planes.
 ( I-16, Mig-3, P-39 )

The number of enemy planes including only planes which was shot down
personally not in group.

The last Kojedub plane (La-7) was in Monino ExSU AirForce Museum (nearest
Moscow).

One of the book about Pokryshkin is " V pare s Sotym" ( "In pair with 100"
N 100 - fuselage number of Pokryshkin P-39). It's too intersting book.
Author is Vladimir Golubev (N 55), who was a Pokryshkin pertner in pair ( I
don't know exactly what it's in English).
We have film about Pokryshkin - " W nebe Pokryshkin " (" Pokryshkin in the
air"). And, in the American film "Uknown War" You may see episode with
Pokryshkin.

 In 1942 was killed our ace Boris Safonov (25 planes). He defenced
convoy PQ-16.

Rustam Yusupov
Property Fund of Omsk
prince@fund.omsk.su


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products
From: swaits@slab.pr.erau.edu (Stephen Waits)
Subject: Re: PILOTE TRAINING SCHOOL
Organization: Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, Prescott
Date: Fri, 8 Jan 1993 19:38:07 GMT

In article <3615.1814.uupcb@compart.fi> nikke.gaby@compart.fi (Nikke Gaby)  writes:
>        So, I'm looking for me and my brother Patrick a high caliber
>        pilote training in a professional environment. We're searching
>        full-time training and high quality education. We're certified
>
I am a student at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.  We have two
campuses, one in Daytona Beach Florida, the other here in Prescott, 
Arizona.  I am not sure if you were looking for a school in your area, but
Embry-Riddle is one of the best 4 year aerospace institutions in the states.
Bachelor of Science degrees are offered in Aerospace Engineering, Aero-
nautical Science (flight), Computer Science w/ Aviation Apps., Aviation
Business administration, and Electrical Engineering.

If you or anybody else would like some more information regarding ERAU, 
mail me.
>
Stephen Waits
swaits@slab.pr.erau.edu


Newsgroups: rec.aviation.products