HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:44:57 GMT


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

fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu writes:

>I think the idea of the depth charges is to force a submarine to surface and
>surrender, thus providing both proof of it's nationality, and a very
>embarrassing situation to the owner of the sub.  Driving it away would be the
>next best option.  Sinking it might be bad, since you never know if it's a
>nuke, and what you might damage with the depth charges.  I'm sure the Swedes
>are very careful with their depth charges (reactor pieces all over a shallow
>ocean isn't good).

Yes, the idea is to force the intruder to surface. However, the navy now has 
orders to fire for effect if the intruder is in the inner waters. Since most 
of the subs are pretty small (around 30 meters or so) I don't imagine that they
are nuclear. Recently the navy also fired torpedoes at the intruder. However, 
the environment is _very_ hard for ASW work. With a depth between 30 - 100 
meters, a lot of small islands, chasms, crags and brackish water the sonar
performance is shot to hell. After you fired a weapon you have a hell of a time
to re-acquire the target. The target can also lay down on the bottom, making
it even harder to find it. All in all, it's not all that easy to find and kill
something in archipelago.

NOTE: I do not have access to ANY classified or otherwise restricted 
information about Royal Navy ASW or the presence or non-presence of intruders
in swedish waters. All information given in this posting is taken from open 
sources.

--
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: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Subject: Re: Controversy over V-2 anniversary
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:56:10 GMT


From randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)

>From pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)

>In article <BvE5D6.29n@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, higgins@fnalf.fnal.gov
>(Bill Higgins-- Beam Jockey) writes, in part:

>>Remember a week or so ago, when somebody on this newsgroup reminded us
>>that the first flight of a V-2 (A-4, if you prefer) into "space" had
>>taken place fifty years ago, in October 1942?

>>Monday I heard a news account that ceremonies to celebrate this
>>event have become a matter of controversy.  

>>Has anybody heard more detail?

I heard that the celebration was going to be a Peenemunde (sp?) and
was sponsered by several large German aviation companies.  It was
indeed canceled because of bad press.

Here's an interesting question.  Why is a celebration of the first
flight of the V-2 ( a significant scientific achievment that later
killed thousands) more contraversial than the statute of "Bomber"
Harris, who in part killed hundreds of thousands.

Is there anythig besides who won or lost?

-Randy

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: twiggy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen)
Subject: The IDF fighter
Organization: The University of Texas at Austin, Austin TX
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:29:05 GMT


From twiggy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu (Allen)


Hi all.  Does anyone have any info concerning the IDF produced in Taiwan ?
I read about it in a Chinese magazine (from Taiwan) a while back.  Although
it did provide some details and pictures, it probably wasn't as objective
as I'd like it to be.  While the magazine heaped praises upon praises on the
airplane, I've heard some people making calling it the "It Don't Fly."  So just
how good is this plane ?  

-- 
%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%\%
% Allen Tsuei, University of Texas at Austin  %  Just another one of those    %
% e-mail: twiggy@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu           %  bloody Asian EE's.           %
%---------------------------------------------------------------------------- %
% "Outside of dogs, books are a man's best friend.  Inside a dog, it's too    %
%       dark to read."  -- Groucho Marx	                                      %

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Patriot Basing media, etc.
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:34:31 GMT


From fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)

In article thedemon@world.std.com (Dan C Duval) writes:
>
>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.) 
 
Don't forget that the Patriot (like the Scud) batteries can be reloaded, 
which lowers the cost/launch of the overal system somewhat. 
 
Targets on the ground that don't get hit by the incoming missile (by luck?) 
should probably be counted as well, although that would harder to quantify. 
 
>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.
 
The initial air-to-air missiles (not to mention earlier air-defense systems) 
weren't all that good either... 
 
Anyone seen much about THAAD, which looks like a follow-on to Patriot? 


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
From: akira@atson.asahi-np.co.jp (Akira Takiguchi)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Advanced WWII German Tanks
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:39:23 GMT
Organization: ATSON, Inc. (a subsidiary of the Asahi Shimbun)


From akira@atson.asahi-np.co.jp (Akira Takiguchi)


In article <BvAsEF.AF0@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> akula@ecst.csuchico.edu (Guo Han-Zhang) writes:
>I've never seen any of these tanks in any books. In the game's data, the E-50
>has a 88mm/L71 main gun and is faster than the Phanther, the E-75 has a 128mm 
>gun , seemed like the one used on Jadgtiger. The Panther II also has the same
>88mm/L71 used on King Tiger. Could anybody tell me where can I find the refer- 
>ences of those tanks /* if they really existed */ ? Any help will be appreciated.

     E50: 50t class tank, replacement for Panther.  Plan only.
          60 km/h with 900PS (prototype; 1200PS expected?) motor.
          Presumably with 8.8 cm L/71 on Panther-II turret.
     E75: 75t class tank, replacement for Tiger.  Plan only.  40 km/h
          with the same engine as E50.
     Panther II: There is a prototype vehicle in _running_ condition.

     You can find data in any reasonable German tank books.  Above data
is taken from Spielberger's book [_Spezial-Panzerfahrzeuge_].  In some
older books, Panther II is sometimes confused with Panther Ausf. F.
-- 
       Akira Takiguchi  at ATSON, Inc. (a subsidiary of the Asahi Shimbun)
                   WAKO GINZA bldg.  8-10-4 Ginza Chuo-ku Tokyo 104  Japan
   +81 3 3289 7051(voice) 7066(fax)  EMAIL TO <akira@atson.asahi-np.co.jp>
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Tuomas Viljanen <c34657b@saha.hut.fi>
Subject: Re: 50 Years Ago: Wednesday, 30 September, 1942
Organization: The Nibelungenlied Incorporated
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:31:14 GMT


From Tuomas Viljanen <c34657b@saha.hut.fi>

In article <BvE5At.22I@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> you write:
>
>From military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
>
>Captain Jochen Marseille, German's top fighter ace in Africa, is killed
>when the engine of his Bf 109 fighter fails.  He had 151 victories to his
>credit.

This may be nit-picking, but his name was Hans-Joachim, not Jochen. (He is
often mixed up with the German top night-fighter ace Heinz-Wolfgang Schnaufer,
their 1st names are quite similar).

An excellent model of his Bf 109 F-4 is available in 1/48 scale by Hasegawa.



-- 
  ++ Tuomas Viljanen                     ++ For a battle like Crecy, you do  ++
  ++ Lahderanta 20 A 19                  ++ not need a military genius like  ++
  ++ SF-02720 Espoo 72 FINLAND           ++ Edward III. All you need is an   ++
  ++ 358-0-592175 or c34657b@saha.hut.fi ++ idiot like the Duke of Alencon.  ++
                  
                                                           




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: megazone@coal.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:24:22 GMT


From megazone@coal.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)

In article <BvE5J9.2I6@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
>Another thing, the soviets were clearly superior to us in a number of
>metallurgical innovations not the least of which was their titanium hulled
>submarines. We never did develope a matching capability there so I would
>think it's a *least* one example of where the soviets were superior to
>anything the West had.

I would have to disagree. The West (US) has the capability to build titanium
submarines, but the cost is prohibitive. Not the tech, the raw materials.
The former USSR is lucky to have large reserves of titanium ore, plus they
weren't opposed to dumping huge quantities of money into a hull.

The high yield steel the US uses has been shown to be better than the 
comparable steel the Soviets used.

The US has developed many high temperature alloys that the Soviets haven't
matched. Especially in aircraft applications, such a turbines.

###############################################################################
# I have one prejudice, and that is against stupidity.  Use your mind, think! #
#Email megazone@wpi.wpi.edu  Moderator, WPI anime FTP site 130.215.24.1 /anime#
###############################################################################

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: island!etorofu!fester@uunet.UU.NET ()
Subject: Walker and the Pueblo
Organization: Island Graphics, Marin County, California
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:55:09 GMT


From island!etorofu!fester@uunet.UU.NET ()

I happened to catch A&E's new series "Spies" on TV the other night. This par-
ticular episode was devoted to the Walker spy scandal of a couple years
ago. According to a quoted CIA source (quoted but unnamed), the damage done
by the Walkers was so great that "had war broken out with the Russians in 
the 70s, the Russians would have won". 

Well, maybe, but what I found to be MOST interesting was that Walker apparantly
recruited himself in 1967, during the Vietnam war. He handed over to the
Soviets most of our codes, but the Russians had no way of knowing if they
were "the real thing" unless they had a copy fo the decoding machine (sorry,
I don't know enough about this to explain why, but I have every confidence
that someone will offer a very good explanation). So, they apparantly convinced
the North Koreans to sieze an American spyship, and the USS Pueblo just
happened to make itself available. With the equipment in hand, the Soviets 
were able to confirm the authenticity of the codes, and Walker was well on
his way to becoming the most damaging spy in our history.

Mike
-- 
Disclaimer - I'm only doing what the little voices tell me to do.
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: V-1s with nerve-gas warheads?
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:07:53 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


From fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)

>From bx916@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Ross W. Starkey)
>
>A little while ago I read a book by Ian Slater called FORBIDDEN ZONE.
>
>The book is a novel which claims to be based on historical fact.  I was
>wondering if the novel was really based on fact, or if it is a work of
>fiction.
>
>Incidentally, the author is an Australian who was a "Defense Officer for the
>Australian Joint Intelligence Bureau" who has a Ph.D. in Political Science,
>according to the "about the author" page in the back of the book.

Well, maybe.

Slater wrote a series in the Clancyesque mould of a potential future
WW3.  He plays a little fast and loose with reality, though:

 - A major character is a Navy F-14 pilot (who also flies both Air Force 1
   and Air Force B-52 missions at various points in the narrative).

 - He has U.S. Navy carriers operating F-14's, F-15's, and F-117's
   at roughly the same time.

 - etc., etc., ...

I was considering going through the series of books, noting the...um...
interesting parts that I noticed on my own and writing to him about
them.

Maybe when I have a *lot* more time.

"Forbidden Zone" might be better, after all, the Nazi's *were* actively
developing and producing nerve agents...then again, maybe not.


--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>
Subject: Re: Kinetic Energy Tank Killers
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:33:47 GMT


From Raymond Man <raymond@jupiter.ame.arizona.edu>

>In article <Bv3CHv.MI2@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> RSCH2867@cl.uh.edu writes:
>>
>>From RSCH2867@cl.uh.edu
>>
>>The concept is very simple.  Take a 75kg missle, propel it at the target at
>>1650 meters/second, and it hits the tank with energy on the order of 10**8
>>joules (remebering kinetic energy = one-half mass times (velocity squared)).

In <BvArun.9M9@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) write:
>This is a pretty marginal-sounding amount of energy to direct at a tank.  The
>standard 'popular' explanation of a megajoule is that it's the energy released
>by burning a jelly donut (look around yourself: I've seen this several different
>places).  So let's say 10^8 joule is the energy of a pound or 2 of explosives.

I am not familiar with the jelly donut or explosives conversion, but 75kg is 
like a 120mm tank gun shell and 1650 m/s is far higher than its muzzle
velocity. So if a 120mm tank gun is enough of an anti-tank weapon, surely that
smart missle too.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)
Subject: Sparrows and the Turkish DD
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:49:41 GMT


From labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)


	Can anyone tell me what guidance system the sea sparrow  has. I
	understand at this point that it has radar, but is it command
	control or  active? ( I don't have my janes handy here at
	school) From what I saw from the news reports, two missiles hit
	the DD in the bridge effectively eliminating the ship of its
	brain. (pretty good shooting if you ask me... especially for a
	surface to air missile a few modifications and the carriers now
	have surface to surface reach.....;-)...)

	Ryan M. Gill

[ mod note -- I believe the Sea Sparrow is a "beam rider", where the
launching platform keeps the target illuminated with it's radar, and the
Sea Sparrow "rides the beam" to impact the target ]
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:33:06 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <BvArtx.9Kn@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au 
(John Dimogotsis) writ 
> 	So how could the Rusians produce anything as good as the West when they
> had less than 1/3 of the US military budget to spend, and they have gone 
> bankrupt trying.
> 

It's always been hard to put an exact figure on how much the USSR was
spending on the military since alot of the items the US would've included
in the Defense Budget appeared elsewhere in the USSR's. One thing I
found very enlightening was a comment that Admiral Crowe (I think it
him, anyway) made after he took that trip to the USSR he went on. He
stated that his Soviet counterpart commented on how much of their GNP
they had spent on the military & it was 2 or 3 times higher than *any*
US intelligence agency estimate that I ever saw! It appears to me that
their budget could've easily had more "money" in it than the US one did.
Also, many people think to this day that the MiG-21 was superior to the
F-104. Both were contemporaries & both had about the same initial mission.
Another thing, the soviets were clearly superior to us in a number of
metallurgical innovations not the least of which was their titanium hulled
submarines. We never did develope a matching capability there so I would
think it's a *least* one example of where the soviets were superior to
anything the West had.

PHIL
From: lungtt@gus26.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)
Subject: Re: Military Computer Security Rules
Organization: Purdue University Engineering Computer Network
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:40:15 GMT


From lungtt@gus26.ecn.purdue.edu (Terence T. Lung)

In article <BvI6pw.Lp8@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> meyer@handel.psu.edu (Andrew Meyer) writes:
>
>From meyer@handel.psu.edu (Andrew Meyer)
>
>I have a friend in the Air Force...
>...When he was home last, he told me that he was not allowed to login
>to DDN (The Net to most of us) for unofficial purposes (like using E-mail)
>because of security concerns.  My question is this...is this standard procedure
>for the military?
It's probably a procedure that follows common sense.  I used to work as
a civilian mechanical engineer at the U.S. Navy's Naval Surface Warfare 
Center near Washington, D.C.  Like telephones, you accept the fact that
every other medium of communication you use is subject to monitoring.
That is the security aspect.  If your unofficial use is strangely voluminous,
the powers-that-be (put yourself in their shoes) would certainly put 
restrictions on you.  BTW, it is very easy to see how much and what kind
of computer activity one performs.

On top of these things being unofficial, I would suspect that your friend
is expected to do some real work during official hours.  The public 
entrusts you with their tax-dollars to do something real.  If you're
goofing around using e-mail for non-business reasons, this doesn't look
good.  It's also plainly a break of public trust.  Get a job. Your 
customer gets first priority.  (The Navy's been blowing this one left
and right in recent events.  I'd suspect the DoD's interested in some
top to bottom public-image checks.)

As far as security goes, you'll find that many of my colleagues at NSWC
and elsewhere are still active on bulletin boards like this one.  For their 
safety and for YOUR safety, they'll certainly exercise a lot of personal 
judgement as to what kind of information they'll submit for public view.

>The Air Force?
probably not.  e.g. My experience is Navy.

>Is it just because he is an A1C?  
probably not.  see above remark.

>Is it just because he was stationed at a SAC base?...
probably not.  see above remark.  This may just mean a little more
monitoring.

>...So what is the standard procedure reguarding E-mail in the AF?
I would guess that the official line rings along the lines of
"Please keep your unofficial business within bounds."  or
"Use of government facilities means consent to monitoring."

>(He was in "Personel Systems Managment", so he had good reason to be on 
>the computers a lot...
>...Thanks for any info. you can provide.
>
> -- Andy Meyer
> ( meyer@crayola.cs.psu.edu)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Tom Oates)
Subject: Re: Nuclear reactors in space.
Organization: Bristol Polytechnic, England
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:44:41 GMT


From th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Tom Oates)

Someone posted re. possible dangers of nuclear reactors in space.

There's no problems about using them to power satellites because when
the satellite reaches the end of its life there is a special booster rocket 
which technicians fire to take the satellite so high it will never
reenter the earth's atmosphere. The only two problems are if:-

1). The booster doesn't fire, the orbit decays and the reactor burns
up and scatters fissile material over land (this happened to a Soviet
satellite over Canada in the 1970s)

2). The rocket fails as it is being launched into orbit from earth.


Trivia: The ex-USSR are streets ahead of the USA when it comes to 
small atomic reactors. The USA are buying ex-USSR 'TOPAZ' series reactors
to use in future projects.
-- 
****************************************************************************** 
* Tom Oates (Univ. of West of England) * DISCLAIMER:I speak only for myself. * 
* Email to: th2_oate@uk.ac.uwe.csd     * PGP 2.0 Key available upon request. *
******************************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: scw@ollie.SEAS.UCLA.EDU
Subject: Re: Kinetic Energy Tank Killers
Organization: UCLA School Of Engineering & Applied Science
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:40:03 GMT


From scw@ollie.SEAS.UCLA.EDU


In article <BvCCA3.454@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> trip@cco.caltech.edu (Trip) writes:
>
>From trip@cco.caltech.edu (Trip)
>
>>>I'm sorry I didn't have the chance to convert 100 million joules to
>>>something really familiar like the heat necessary to roast a car -
>>>maybe someone in net land can come up with that. The tricky part to the
>>>weapon was guidence - which
>
>>This is a pretty marginal-sounding amount of energy to direct at a
>>tank.  The standard 'popular' explanation of a megajoule is that it's
>>the energy released by burning a jelly donut (look around yourself:
>>I've seen this several different places).  So let's say 10^8 joule is
>>the energy of a pound or 2 of explosives.
>
>Actually, a megajoule is the energy released by setting off about 200g
>of C4 (5kJ/g). So, 100 MJ is equivalent to 20kg of C4, which is fairly
>respectable. Explosives aren't particularly good energy storage, but
>they do release what they have very quickly.



OK, now we're getting somewhere.  It takes a a 1/4" ball of C4 (~.5 cc 
~~ 1/2 gram, c4 doesn't quite float) to boil a canteen cup (~1/2 liter)
of water to make Coffee.  Hence a MJ is enough energy to boil 400
liters of water starting at about 20c (assuming that you are using a C-rat
can with holes in it as the holder (a lot of heat gets wasted).  (That
sounds about right, I had a quarter stick (1/2 Kilo) that lasted almost
a whole year.)

A fair amount of energy all things considered.


-----
Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (310)-825-8614
UUCP: ...{ibmsupt,ncar!cepu}!ollie}!scw  Internet:scw@SEAS.UCLA.EDU
"Non, je ne regrette rien"--1er RE de Para 1963

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Patroit SAM/ABM System
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:35:45 GMT


From PPUGLIESE@pimacc.pima.edu

Some things to remember about the Patriot missle system;

A) Someone said it was "obsolescent". Well, it's the most modern
SAM system we have so the point seems moot. No one I've heard has
suggested that the venerable HAWK system is any better & the HAWK
is the only other option.

B) Using the Patriot as an anti-missle system was still in the ex-
perimental stage when the Gulf War erupted. This make it, in my mind
anyway, more of a test than a real operational deployment.

C) Due to the height attained by ballistic missles, their warheads
are heavily armored to protect against the heat of re-entry. This,
obviously, will make it tough on a missle that was designed to shoot
down aircraft.

My conclusion is that, all things considered, the Patriot did remark-
ably well considering the experimental nature of it's ABM capability.
Obviously, it has a ways to go before it's ready to be certified for
ABM use but the program is at the beginning of developement , not the
end. Problems should not be unexpected.

PHIL


Newsgroups: sci.military