HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lahaye@reg.triumf.ca (RAYMOND GABIN , TRIUMF OPERATIONS)
Subject: Re: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?
Organization: TRIUMF: Tri-University Meson Facility
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:33:45 GMT


From lahaye@reg.triumf.ca (RAYMOND GABIN , TRIUMF OPERATIONS)

In article <BvArtx.9Kn@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis) writes...
> 
>From jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis)
> 
> 
>	Some people have expressed their belief that the Mig29 is equal if not
>superior to western planes. I find that hard to believe (more like imposible ).
> 
>	Obviously the US government would not officialy contradict this since 
>by exagerating Soviet capabilities it has managed to get funds for its military
>projects over the years. Always scaring everybody by attributing to the `enemy'
>capabilities which it was only just aquiring, while the West already had the
>very same capability already deployed, usualy years in advance.
> 
>	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.
> 
	The amount of money one country spends is not a true reflection of its
ability to produce.  After all the US military budget includes salaries as
well, and the money spent by the Soviets on personel was appreciably less.  It
also depends on what type of project the money is spent: one example in the
West is the Sergeant York project, in which hundreds of millions dollars was
spent to no avail.  We won't mention the price that the armed forces paid for
tools and toilet seats.  I am sure that the Soviets probably experienced similar
fiascoes.  But your conclusion is generally correct: the Soviet system went
broke, trying to match military spending with the West.
From: whitman@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Rusty Whitman)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Release of Tactical Nukes
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:04:20 GMT
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center


From whitman@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Rusty Whitman)

There were a number of posts recently on the chain of events
that are involved in initiating launch of ICBMs.  I was 
wondering if there were any safeguards associated with the
release of tactical nuclear weapons other than verbal orders.
It seems to me that the kinds of precautions built into ICBMs
might not be incorporated into battlefield weapons and that
once these weapons were removed from their bunker they were
for all intents and purposes "ready to use".  Does anyone
know if this is the case?  Or is it necessary to have a
set of codes in order to arm the weapons?

I've been trying to determine what happened to the tactical
nuclear weapons in the former USSR.  There is a good accounting
of the strategic weapons but hardly a mention of the tactical 
weapons.   This, combined with the unrest at several military
bases makes me wonder who has control of the tactical nukes, and
if one were to get "loose", whether it would be immediately usable.
I assume the Soviets would have put safeguards on their tactical 
nuclear weapons similar to whatever the U.S. has implemented.

Rusty Whitman - "just my opinions"
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: PAUL D CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.EDU>
Subject: Re: WWII -- Why didn't Japan invade Hawaii?
Organization: Amherst College
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:29:59 GMT


From PAUL D CHAPIN <pdchapin@unix.amherst.EDU>

My readings would indicate that the Japan didn't invade for three reasons.

1.  They needed the resources for the drive south.  Taking the oil resources
of Indonesia was there first priority.  Hawaii in notably short of oil.  They
just didn't have the resources for moving two directions at once.  That was
on the major arguements in Japan against attacking Hawaii at all.

2.  They would have trouble holding the islands.  They would have had to
maintain extremely long supply lines that were open to American attack, 
particularly sub attack.

3.  They did not expect the actually air attack to be as successful as it was.
After they raids they probably realized that they could land an invasion force,
but they hadn't brought one with them.  

It should be added that bringing an invasion force along with the strike
force would have made the operation significantly more difficult and slowed
the fleet up even more, increasing the chances of discovery.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dep+@cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh)
Subject: Hybrid subs (was Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?)
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:48:56 GMT


From dep+@cs.cmu.edu (David Pugh)

In article dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>A small nuclear powered sub would overcome the endurance problem, but the
>small size would also limit speed.  Plus the faster the nuclear sub goes, the
>noise problem gets only worst.  Thus, if the sub needs to get away fast, it
>probably can't due to engine size, noise, or restricted maneuvering space. 
>Thus a nuclear sub would face moving just as fast as the Diesel/Electric (DE)
>running on batteries.  So is the endurance advantage large enough to overcome 
>all of the noise/speed problems?  Maybe, maybe not.

I always wondered at the utility of putting a "small" nuclear reactor on an
otherwise conventional sub. Ideally, the reactor would be large enough to
provide housekeeping functions + a 5kts "creep" speed and small enough that
it could be convection cooled (i.e. no noisy pumps) and leave some space for
things like food, torpedoes and crew. And, when speed is essential and noise
isn't a major concern, the conventional powerplant could be used. If possible,
such a hybrid sub would seem to have several advantages over a conventional
sub (nearly unlimited bottom time, freedom from a tender, no need to give away
its position by running the noisy diesel while on patrol and the ability to
operate under the ice).

Admittedly, this type of boat might not be too useful on the offense --
covering any distance would be slow or noisy. But a hybrid sub might be worth
the extra expense for coastal and near coastal defense.

And, while we are on the topic of weird sub ideas, has anyone considered using
plastic for a subs hull? There are several rather tough plastics out there
that might be strong enough (especially if supported by metal ribs). The
real problem would be that most plastics tend to deform slowly under a load.
On the plus side, though, plastic should be quieter than metal (vs both
passive and active sonar) and MAD doesn't work against it.
-- 
.. He was determined to discover the		David Pugh
underlying logic behind the universe.		...!seismo!cmucs!dep
    Which was going to be hard, because
there wasn't one.	_Mort_,  Terry Pratchett

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: d89-jsp@nada.kth.se (Arthur Sparrendahl)
Subject: Re: Neutral particle beams (was Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Star Wars Defense System)
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:40:27 GMT


From d89-jsp@nada.kth.se (Arthur Sparrendahl)

In article <BvCCAF.46q@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz) writes:
|> 
|> From dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
|> 
|> In article <BvAsD1.AAv@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
|> ...The usual technique is to accelerate a beam of negative ions,
|> then strip off some of the electrons by passing the beam through some
|> sort of material (thin foil, say)...
|> 	Paul F. Dietz
|> 	dietz@cs.rochester.edu

	There jas been a lot of talk about *neutron* beams for industrial
	use lately. How are they accelerated? I didn't actually understand 
	the process but I think they accelerasted protons and passed the
	proton beam through a beryllium foil. Anyone know anything about
	this?

	Arthur Sparrendahl

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Subject: Re: New Carrier Plan
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:27:21 GMT


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

I write ...
>>My point is that whenever the marines need air support, there are
>>always available air assets of the air force or naval carriers to
>>provide it.  That the marine corps has it's own air force seems a
>>needless duplication of function.  In this day and age, every dollar
>>wasted is a dollar less spent on the important things.

Megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes ...

>Randy, I don't want to be patronizing, but look at history a little closer...

>The reason the Marines have their own air power is because the Navy and
>Air Force AREN'T always available to support them.

Actually, I *knew* that.  However, my understanding is that the Air
Force/Naval Air has always had the planes needed to support the
Marines.  It seems that sometimes these services do not support the
Marines to the satisfaction of the Marines, being distracted by other
things.  You allude to this in part of the article I have edited out.

My problem is this.  There seems needless duplication of forces.  It
would be better if those same planes that helped the carriers fight
their way to the beach could support the Marines on the beach.
Further, it seems that there is *no way* the Marines are going ashore
until the navy has the surrounding sea firmly in control.  This
implies that those naval planes are free to support the Marines.
Finally, once a beach head is secured, the Air Force should be able to
fly in land-based fighters to continue to support the Marines.

Therefore I argue that at no point due the Marines need their own air
force.  Your argument seems to be that the Air Force/Naval Air fails
to provide the support that they should.  This seems to me to *not*
call for a whole Marine air force to make up the deficiancy, but
instead that the Air Force / Naval Air should be fixed.

I argue that the Marine Air Force should be cut simply because
something needs to be cut (for bugetary and political reasons) and
that the Marine Air Force performs a function that can be carried by
the other forces.

Like I said, what would *you* cut????

-Randy
From: checksix@EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?
Keywords: F-16 makes a superb choice
Date: 30 Sep 92 12:29:37 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.


From checksix@EBay.Sun.COM (Al Conte)


awhile back, a number of savy air combat people were asked
this question.
"If you had only one plane to choose, and this plane had to 
 support all your air force functions, eg. CAP, CAS, surveilence,
etc., what plane would you choose?"

After some argument, they all agreed that if they chose the F-16
Fighting Falcon, they would be superbly capable of dishing it 
out and defending against all threats.
When air to ground and air to air is required, the F-16 can be 
utilized with excellent success.

PS. They also asked for a couple of AWACS!!!


Al Conte
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Clayton B Jenkins <jenkincb@newton.ccs.tuns.ca>
Subject: Canadian Patrol Frigate
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:35:40 GMT


From Clayton B Jenkins <jenkincb@newton.ccs.tuns.ca>


The new Canadian Patrol Frigates will be armed with a vertical launch 
Sea Sparrow (16 launch modules, 12 reloads), a 57mm BOFORS gun,
8 Harpoon anti-ship missiles, a Phalanx CIWS, and 24 Mk46 torpedos.
A Shield Decoy system (chaff and IR decoy) is also in place. 

The CPFs will carry one helicopter for ASW. The hangers will 
apparently have to be modified when the newly announced EH101
replacements for the Sea Kings happen (EH101 is larger then
the Sea King).

HMCS Halifax has been delivered and provisionally accepted. The
Vancouver has been undergoing trials this summer. Toronto is due
this fall, Ville de Quebec around the new year or early next year.
also due next year is Regina and Montreal. Eventually the total will
be 12.

The latest rumors in the local media are that Saudi Arabia is 
interested in the acquisition of three ships based on CPF.
--
Clayton Jenkins                 | jenkincb@newton.ccs.tuns.ca
PRIOR Data Sciences             | phone: (902)423-1331
5475 Spring Garden Rd., Ste 601 | fax: (902)425-3664
Halifax, NS B3J 3T2 Canada      | I don't speak for my employer.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jwstuart@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jesse William Leo Stuart)
Subject: Re: Active/passive IR
Organization: California State University, Chico
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:56:18 GMT


From jwstuart@ecst.csuchico.edu (Jesse William Leo Stuart)

In article <Bv3Co6.Mqo@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> urf@ki.icl.se (Urban F) writes:
>
>From Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
>
>Active IR is decidedly outdated. It requires you to have a light
>source (with an IR filter) which you shine at whatever you
>happen to want to look at, and you to have a detector sensitive
>to this light.
>-- 
> Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se

	This technology isn't necesaryily outdated.  If you used an IR laser
to iluminate your target, instead of the IR 'flashlight', you could get very
satisfactory results useing "old" technology.  Since laser light diffuses
less in the atmosphere than flashlight ilumination, the distance between
the target and the illuminator could be much farther.

Jess Stuart
CSUC Chico CA



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: megazone@dolomite.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: F-16 VTOL
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:43:32 GMT


From megazone@dolomite.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)

In article <Bv57tL.J1q@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> GLEN SEGELL <UDRJ004@ELM.CC.KCL.AC.UK> writes:
>From GLEN SEGELL <UDRJ004@ELM.CC.KCL.AC.UK>
>Rumour has it that a VTOL variant of the F-16 is being considered/developed,
>is this accurate and at what stage is it ?

As too the Harrier, there are several studies but I haven't seen anything
definite.

There is a study of a VTOL F-16 derivative I've seen called the E-7, for study.
(Probably Experimental-7 or somesuch)

It has a Delta wing, (not a cranked arrow) and a larger Turbofan. It uses the
ejector system with doors on the upper and lower wing along the fuselage. One
of text books here, for Fluids (I think it is Introduction to Fluid Mechanics)
has a photo of the aircraft in full scale mock up in a wind tunnel. (Large
white and blue plane if you may have seen it..)

SOMEWHERE, I have info on it. (As long time sci.mil readers may know, I tend
to packrat things and I have books everywhere...)

Last I heard (about 2 years back) it was being studied by DARPA and the Navy.
Since then I haven't heard a thing on the project.

###############################################################################
# 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: chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)
Subject: Re: Canadian Frigate Program
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:35:19 GMT


From chadwemy@wpi.WPI.EDU (Chad Barret Wemyss)

In article <BvI6EK.L8A@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant) writes:

>Now, I have a few questions of my own. Isn't 16 Sea Sparrows cutting
>it rather close? You never can have enough, but 16 seems like very few.
>
>Another question: The new EH101 helicopter is big, and has a sizable
>payload (I don't know exact numbers). Would it be possible to adapt it
>to carry 1 or 2 Harpoons? This would seem like a good way to give a
>little ship longer arms, provided the target doesn't have any CAP.

First Question:  The number of SAM's depends on what the ship's primary 
purpose.  Since the Halifax has a towed array sonar, and ship-board torpedoes,
it would seem that it is primarily an Anti-Sub Warfare (ASW) frigate.  This 
means that in any operational scenario, it would operate in conjunction with 
Anti-Air Warfare (AAW) frigates and destroyers, armed with more powerful SAM 
armament.  In thiscase, the SeaSparrows would be used only for point defense, 
to destroy the incoming missiles that got through the first layer of defensive 
SAM's.  The designers would have liked to have given it a larger number of Sea
Sparrows, but are limited by hull size and cost restraints.

Second Question:  The EH101 was designed, as far as I know, with the option of
an anti-ship missile armament.  Whether this will be the Harpoon, or some 
European missile like the British Sea Eagle or the French Exocet, remains to be
seen. 


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: The Pakistani Nukeman aka The Arabian Pheonix
Subject: SS Agosta-90 & French Minesweepers for Pakistan
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:49:58 GMT


From The Pakistani Nukeman aka The Arabian Pheonix

Hello there,
    According to recent wire reports, France agreed to sell Pakistan three
Agosta-90 class submarines. Also the first of the three French Minesweepers
(bought in 1990 (?)) will be entering service in Pak. Navy in Nov. or Dec. If
I remember correctly, the second one is to be made jointly and the third one
in Pakistan according to the news at that time.
    How does the Agosta-90 differ from the regular Agosta class subs? Also I
couldn't find mention of any french minesweeper in the references in univ.'s
library (print date: 1989 or earlier. poor library!) Is this class of warships
relatively new or just a variant of some other class? Also am I wrong about the
construction of these ships?

    Thanks in advance.

Bilal A. Bhutta
---
Nuclear Engineering Dept.
U Massachusetts-Lowell

bhuttam@woods.ulowell.edu
mbhutta@cs.ulowell.edu
---

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:33:23 GMT


From fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)

In article <BvArtx.9Kn@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis) writes:
>	Some people have expressed their belief that the Mig29 is equal if not
>superior to western planes. I find that hard to believe (more like imposible ).

>	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.

You are forgetting the age of the aircraft: The F16 and F/A18 are
fifteen to twenty year-old designs. The Soviets started flying MiG29s and
Su27's less than a decade ago. 

The question is, does the American technological edge amount to more
than ten years of research and development? Apparently it doesn't.

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jbachman@igloo.Central.Sun.COM (Jay Bachman [Sun Denver SE])
Subject: Re: V-1 nerve-gas hokum
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:29:39 GMT


From jbachman@igloo.Central.Sun.COM (Jay Bachman [Sun Denver SE])

Excuse my ignorance, but I appear to be unaware of the "Sidi Barani
accident" which you refer to in this posting.  Would you please expand
on it a bit or point me to some appropriate references.  Thanks!

Jay Bachman
From: dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Neutral particle beams (was Re: Russia's OPERATIONAL Star Wars Defense System)
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:03:50 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Department University of Rochester


From dietz@cs.rochester.edu (Paul Dietz)

In article <BvAsD1.AAv@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) 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, ...


Au contraire!  Neutral particle beams are in everyday use for fusion
research, at the megawatt level.  Frank has the idea a bit wrong,
though.  The usual technique is to accelerate a beam of negative ions,
then strip off some of the electrons by passing the beam through some
sort of material (thin foil, say).  NPBs are used in fusion to heat
plasmas, as they can penetrate through magnetic fields into the core
of the plasma before being dissociated.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@cs.rochester.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: sjameson@atl.ge.com (Stephen M Jameson)
Subject: Re: DoD News 09/21/92
Organization: GE Advanced Technology Laboratories
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:56:08 GMT


From sjameson@atl.ge.com (Stephen M Jameson)

In article <Bv3Cp1.MtM@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil (CMSgt Mike Bergman) writes:
> 
>      Congress has been notified of a proposed Letter of Offer from the Coordi-
                                                                         ^^^^^^
> nation Council foAmerican Affairs (CCNAA) for the purchase of 12 SH-2F LAMPS MK
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 1 ASW helicopters including the rework and overhaul of helicopters and engines;
> logistics support to include 12 spare engines, support equipment, training,
> spare and repair parts, technical documentation and contractor technical
> services.  The estimated cost is $161 million. 
> 

Who are these people, where are they, and what do they intend doing with the
LAMPS plus the F-16's they bought recently???

--
Steve Jameson                           General Electric Aerospace 
sjameson@atl.ge.com                     Advanced Technology Laboratories
                                        Moorestown, New Jersey              
****************************************************************************
**  . . . but I do not love the sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow    **
**  for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory.  I love only that   **
**  which they defend . . .                                               **
**    -- Faramir, "The Two Towers"                                        **
****************************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Piston engine experiments (Re: In-flight refueling in WWII)
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:49:13 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com> writes:

>H-engines?  I searched through my references and came up with two 
>examples of American engines that had H-configurations, namely, two 
>banks of cylinders each driving a separate crankshaft, the crankshafts 
>being coupled together by gearing arrangments.  

	I've seen one of these...

>The other example I can recall is the Lycoming H-2470 engine which 
>powered the experimental Vultee XP-54 pusher fighter of 1943.  This 
>engine had 24 cylinders and was liquid cooled.  This engine failed to 
>perform as anticipated, and the project was abandoned.  

	Could this be known as a W-24, being two V-12's in a common
crankcase with the crankshafts geared together?  Two banks of cylinders
stick up at about a 45 included angle, with the other two banks
sticking out to the sides at what looked to be about a 150 degree
included angle.  Let's see if I can't do this in ascii:

          *        *
           *      *
        ****  OO  ****

	The * are cylinders, the O are crankshaft centers.  Note that I
have not canted the horizontal cylinders, but they aren't quite level to
my recollection.  Let's see, four manifolds, four turbochargers, I think
24 carbs, about 6' long by 4' wide total.  I've seen one in running
condition in a garage here in Iowa.

	Information on this motor would be appreciated.  It's fairly
suprising to see one of these on a wooden engine stand in the corner
of a junkyard's garage/shop area in Iowa of all places.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"I see angels on Ariels in leather and>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | chrome, Swooping down from heaven to >
<viking@iastate.edu      | carry me home."   ---    R. Thompson >
<ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee.>




Newsgroups: sci.military