HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: 106mm Recoiless Rifle - Rocket or Gun?
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:36:11 GMT


From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)

In article <BxID61.LMH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:

>Another feature was that the instant dust cloud
>the thing raised blinded the crew many times but , presumably, would at-
>tract alot of tank or AFV anti-personnel fire. RR duty assignments was
>NOT something that was sought after. 

Col. Hatcher, in his Notebook, mentions the Recoiless Rifle 
favorably, saying that it gave infantry the power of artillery
in a weapon that had about the same accuracy as a '06 Spring-
field and could be handled by four men. 

I suppose though that theres another side to this 9-)




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rkim@opus.uucp (Richard H.S. Kim)
Subject: Re: WWII Feature - "Silent Srevice"
Organization: Cal State Univ. Los Angeles (CS Dept.)
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:36:49 GMT


From rkim@opus.uucp (Richard H.S. Kim)

A very important element that was left out was the superiority of the
U.S. codebreakers.  Their success in breaking the Japanese military codes
enabled them to work on other codes, the most interesting was the maru
codes, or "S" codes.

These codes were the ones used by Japanese merchant ships to transmit
info back to Tokyo, in hindsight, a bad move.  As the U.S. easily broke
these codes, they were able to relay this information to the subs.
Many of the American subs simply waited at the coordinates given, and
nailed the ships as they came.  Some of the sub commanders even complained
when the Japanese were late!

Tojo admitted that sub warfare took a devastating toll on Japan.

This was in a Cryptoanalysis history book, of course.  I believe it was
the Codebreakers.

Later,
Rich K.
email/inet>  rkim@opus.calstatela.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Spy Satellites for the UAE?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:25:48 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

In <Bxyv6H.G6q@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> kmr4@po.CWRU.edu (Keith M. Ryan) writes:

>	I could not concieve of selling a top of the line satellite to any 
>nation ( except maybe Britian). I would be dubious about even an older 
>model. If they were to help out the UAE, I would think it would be in the 
>form of selling information. That is, the USA keeps the satellite and 
>devotes a small team to spy upon Iraq, Iran, etc for the UAE. The UAE tells 
>them what they want looked at, and the team does so. Then, they just give 
>the UAE the information, not the technology. It would also be much more cost 
>effective, as the UAE would not have to duplicate all the recieving 
>stations, computer support, etc.

	But the recieving stations and computer support aren't the
technology, are they?  We have video games that are probably more advanced
than the ground stations.  It's the sattelite that's the limiting tech,
and you can't just grab it and examine it.  The catch is that they'll
know what the resolution of that bird is, but it's already public anyway.

	Sell it.  Just let the buyer know that if they get us annoyed
we may decide to "re-program" their eye in the sky for them.

< Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu viking@iastate.edu >
<  ISU only censors what I read, not what I say.  Don't blame them.  >
<  "This isn't an answer, it's a pagan dance around a midnight fire  >
<   written in intellectual runes." -- Rich Young                    >

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Former Soviet Navy Posting Number 7:  'Yankee I' class SSBN
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:24:40 GMT


From Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>


'Yankee I' class SSBN

Type:  Nuclear-powered ballistic missile submarine
Displacement:  7800 tons surfaced and 9600 tons submerged
Dimensions:  Length 129.5 m, beam 11.6 m, draught 7.8 m
Armament:  16 vertical launch tubes for 16 SS-N-6 'Serb' SLBM's
	6 533mm bow torpedo tubes for a typical load of 18 Type 53 dual-role 
	torpedoes
Electronics:  One 'Snoop Tray' surface-search and navigation radar, one low-
	frequency active/passive bow sonar, one medium-frequency torpedo fire-
	control sonar, one 'Brick Group' ESM system, one 'Pert Spring' 
	satellite navigation system, one 'Cod Eye' navigation system, one 'Park
	Lamp' direction finder, and various communications and navigation 
	systems.
Propulsion:  Two pressurized water-cooled reactors supplying steam to two sets 
	of geared turbines delivering 37,300 kW (50,025 hp) to two shafts.
Performance:  Maximum submerged speed 27 knots, diving depth 400 m operational 
	and 600 m maximum.
Complement:  120

Number Built:  15 for Soviet Navy

Comments:  The 'Yankee' was the Soviet Navy's first series-produced SSBN type, 
	and the original 34 boats were built at the Severodvinsk 402 and 
	Komsomolsk yards between 1963 and 1972.  The 'Yankee' class has 
	engineering compartments 30% longer than those of the contemporary 
	Lafayette class in US Navy service, indicating a bulkier (less 
	efficient) power plant.  This class is being reduced in number as the 
	newer 'Delta III', 'Delta IV', and 'Typhoon' classes enter service.
	SS-N-6 'Serb' Model 1:  Range 2400 km; CEP 1850 m; warhead, one 700 kT 
		RV; guidance, inertial
	SS-N-6 'Serb' Model 2:  Range 3000 km; CEP 1850 m; warhead, one 650 kT 
		RV; guidance, inertial
	SS-N-6 'Serb' Model 3:  Range 3000 km; CEP 1850 m; warhead, two 350 kT 
		MRV's; guidance, inertial
	Type 53 533 mm torpedo:  My sources dont give any data on torpedoes,
		but I can only assume that they are similar to the US Navy's 
		533 mm Mk.48
	







Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: Surplus Soviet Jets
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:36:17 GMT


From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)

In article <BxICuK.Kz6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz> writes:

>Does anyone else remember reading figures like 1000 hrs total life for
>a MIG-29 engine, with 400 hrs between o/hauls?

I'd also heard that Mig-21 wings had a life of about
100 hours. Don't know if that was total or between 
overhauls,




-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !

Newsgroups: sci.military
From:  <keith%hydra.unm.edu@lynx.unm.edu>
Subject: Re: Basic Training
Organization: University of New Mexico, Albuquerque
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:33:49 GMT


From  <keith%hydra.unm.edu@lynx.unm.edu>

In article <Bxyuuw.FGp@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Herschel H Mayo <hhm@ihlpe.att.com> writes:
>
>From Herschel H Mayo <hhm@ihlpe.att.com>
>
>
>> >
>> >>>Hi! I am thinking of joining the Army and I have a few questions. I would like
>> >>>opinions on what to expect in Basic training.  I would also like so suggestions
>> 
>> Well, it's no summer camp and within 2 minutes you wil wonder that the
>> ......
>> is always remember it is only a mental game. Hope this helps!
>> 
>> Jeff
>
>All good advice. Also, buy a good supply of Dr Scholl's foot pads and
>mole skin, and heavy NYLON, olive drab socks. You can get them at most
>surplus stores. Do whatever you need to do to smuggle them past personel
>effects inspections. Put them in your pockets or shaving kit. You
>will be issued WOOL socks and nylon screen footpads. These are crap.
>Throw them away. They will blister your feet in no time. Before any long
>hike, armor your feet with the moleskin, put the pads in your boots, and
>wear the nylon socks. Never ask any questions, or assume that you will be
>rewarded for doing anything. Always DO WHAT YOU ARE TOLD, NOTHING MORE,
>and NOTHING LESS.
>
>                                                Larry Mayo
>

and another $.02!  1. The Dr. Schools foot pads crush fairly quickly
too, though they are much beter than the issue 'screens'. If you must
use Dr. S., at least get the blue 'work day' ones, slightly denser foam.
DO NOT get the camoflague Dr. S. 'Combat Boot pads', these are just the
cheap ones with green covers.  Best are the athletic pads from Sorbothane
(not a commercial, but they are GOOD) generally orange, available
from outdoor shops (e.g. Oshmans).
remember one thing: it's designed to be survivable; many more people make
it than don't.
to prepare: pushups, pushups, pushups...
-2LT (formerly SSG) Keith Smith


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: MIG 21
Keywords: Information wanted
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:34:09 GMT


From Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>

In <By0tpr.952@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Mark A. Natola"
<natola@coos.dartmouth.edu> writes:

>I am looking for information on the Mig 21 two seat trainer variant. 
Any 
>suggestions???
 
The MiG-21 had three two-seat trainer variants. The first was MiG-21U,
given the NATO designation Mongol. The second is MiG-21US Mongol-B,
similar to the Mongol, but with provision for SPS flap-blowing and a
retractable periscope for the instructor in the rear seat.The third
was the MiG-21UM Mongol-B, a two-seat trainer variant of the MiG-21MF
Fishbed-J, which itself is a variant of the MiG-21PFMA Fishbed-J.
(Get's confusing, eh? :-) Please ask if you'd like more information,
engines, weapons, etc.
-- 
Steve Schultz     Steven.Schultz@mixcom.com

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: appearance of IR jammers
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:24:34 GMT


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

>From hill@plains.NoDak.edu (Andrew Hill)
>My question has to deal with the IRCM jamming unit mounted on HH-53
>Pave Low helos.  The show featured some late evening flight footage
>and the jammer was glowing a light baby blue.  This wasn't the low-
>voltage formation lighting (I know the difference quite well, thank
>you), I was unaware that the devices glowed, let alone in that par-
>ticular color.  Anyone have any explanations?  ...

Fortuitously, it just got mentioned in sci.electronics a few days ago
that IR-emitting LEDs often look blue to modern CCD-based cameras.
The CCD chips which do the imaging are actually quite sensitive to
IR, but to give proper reproduction of visible light, an attempt is
made to filter out the IR.  In color cameras, the IR filters are
usually combined with the color filters (a color camera is essentially
three B&W cameras with red-only, green-only, and blue-only filters in
front of them).  The common type(s) of blue filter seem to be less-
effective IR blockers than the other two colors, for some reason, so
IR sources look faintly blue when seen through modern cameras.  It's
entirely an artifact of the camera; they don't glow visibly.
-- 
MS-DOS is the OS/360 of the 1980s.      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
              -Hal W. Hardenbergh (1985)|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: Story of MiG-21F & BIS
Keywords: loss rate
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:02:40 GMT


From Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>

Are Finlands Mig-21bis aircraft Fishbed-L or Fishbed-N?

-- 
Steve Schultz     Steven.Schultz@mixcom.com

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dgd@kcbbs.gen.nz (David Dix)
Subject: Re: Jutland
Organization: Kappa Crucis Unix BBS, Auckland, New Zealand
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 17:46:16 GMT


From dgd@kcbbs.gen.nz (David Dix)

Edward J. Rudnicki writes:

>It is in the propaganda/public relations arena that things get interesting.
>Both sides claimed victory (of course :), but the accuracy of claims,
>and a few other factors, gave the PR win to the Germans for much of the rest
>of the war: the Germans claimed six major British units sunk, and this
>was confirmed. The British, however, claimed 4 or 5 battleships AND 4 or 5
>battle cruisers sunk. When the truth, one each, became known, this fact
>combined with the AUDACIOUS coverup caused extreme skepticism of the
>Admiralty's claims.

Are you referring to the battleship AUDACIOUS that was one of the Royal Navy's
latest acquisitions when it was sunk on 27 October 1914 by a mine off the
north coast of Ireland?
What was the AUDACIOUS coverup? Did the admiralty not want the public to
know the battleship was lost? When was the coverup exposed? What was the
public's reaction?




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: RPG Combat Rules & Reality
Keywords: rpg
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 14:43:39 GMT


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

In article <BxM629.54s@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> a2husek@rzdspc23.informatik.uni-hamburg.de (Carsten Husek) writes:
>I'm regular player of Role Playing Games (RPGs) and when the action comes
>down to combat I always saw the rules gouverning that subject as some-
>what arkward.
>Now I'm posting in this group to get answers to the following questions
>(in order to design 'better' rules):

On basic principles, you are faced with a very difficult problem: To
be playable, the rules have to be simple. To be realistic, they have
to be complex. In any case...

>How effective are kelvar jackets or similar armour? In one Game I play nothing
>but Assault Rifles (or heavier weapons) could penetrate kelvar jackets and
>even then the target got only a light wound !

That really depends on how heavy and awkard a bullet-proof vest/jacket 
you are talking about. There are certainly some around which would
stop all pistol and many rifle rounds. (Assault rifles, by the
way, aren't too impressive in this regard: They tend to be small
caliber/low energy in comparison to many hunting rifles. In several
states, the 5.56 NATO/.223 Rem is too light to legally use for dear
hunting...) However, the sort of bullet-proof vests used by police
are far less impressive (as well as far lighter, e.g. something that
could reasonably be worn all the time...): They won't stop any
rifle rounds (.22 excepted...) and don't do a great job against
the heavier pistol rounds (hot .357 or .44, etc...)

>How important is personal toughness ('constitution') in surviving wounds?
>Is it more difficult to kill 'tough guys' than a whimp?

I think this combines two seperate issues: How much damage a person
can suffer and still survive; and to what degree a wounded person
can continue to function.

                                              Frank Crary
                                              CU Boulder

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: "jeeps"
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Date: Sun, 22 Nov 1992 16:19:15 GMT


From Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>

The M998 HMMWV is High Mobility, Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle. On the
item of jeeps. I seem to recall something that it was a name taken
from the letters of the designation, and actually wasn't correct. I
can't remember those letters though.

-- 
Steve Schultz     Steven.Schultz@mixcom.com

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Josh Rovero <rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil>
Subject: Re: USSR carriers Varyag, Kuznetov & Ul'yanovsk
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:21:09 GMT


From Josh Rovero <rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil>


There is an article in the latest Naval Institute Proceedings (Nov '92),
Norman Polmar, "Carrier Conondrum Continues", pgs 119-121.

-- 
Josh Rovero   (rovero@oc.nps.navy.mil) | or Internet 5346p@cc.nps.navy.mil 
Department of Oceanography, Code OC/Rv |      Bitnet 5346p@NAVPGS 
Naval Postgraduate School              |              
Monterey, CA  93943   (408) 646-2084   |

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dick Huddleston <dick.huddleston@yob.sccsi.com>
Subject: Re: "jeeps"
Organization: Ye Olde Bailey BBS - Houston, TX - 713-520-1569
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:33:23 GMT


From Dick Huddleston <dick.huddleston@yob.sccsi.com>

 JMM> I want to know what the names of the vehicles are that are commonly
 JMM> referred to as jeeps.  The vehicles I am talking about are officially
 JMM> called 1/4 ton trucks.  They have a non-DOT certified fully independent
 JMM> suspension. Further, I have heard them being referred to as M-38's and
 JMM> M-151's. 
 JMM> Any other ideas?

Jason, the 'jeep' was the name of the little original Willys vehicle in the
WWII era, very square and rugged.  The M-38 is the next generation of the
same vehicle, with a rounded hood and fenders (not square).  The M-151 is
the next generation, and is the last of the jeeps as we know them by the
generic name: next is the much larger "HUMV", affectionatly called
Hum - Vees and they carry weapons platforms, ambulances, etc.  The jeeps
were also called 4X4s from the four wheel drive ability.  Of course, most
army trucks had that capability, including the  next formaer step up from
a 1/4 ton, the 3/4 ton truck, alas with no real moniker.  

Hope this helps some.  

P.S. The M-38s were used in Korea, and carried 105 Recoilless Rifles: in
the Desert Storm, HumVees carried TOW missles (much bigger).


... If at first you don't succeed ... don't try skydiving!
--- Blue Wave/QWK v2.10
                                              
----
Ye Olde Bailey BBS
Houston,Texas
Node 1: 1 713 520 1569
yob.sccsi.com

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pierson@ggone.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)
Subject: Re: Last US Navy WWII Battle??
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1992 17:40:11 GMT


From pierson@ggone.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)

In article <Bx7C8E.E0F@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, camelsho@conquest.ksu.ksu.edu
(   James A Seymour   ) writes, in part:

>An article on the last page about the supposedly last US
>naval battle of the war intrigued me.  I'm reprinting it
>here for your amusement and information. (With out permission,
>of course.)  Also, I have several questions tacked on to the
>end of this post.

>********************** Article Follows *************************

>THE STARS AND STRIPES, SATURDAY, OCT. 6, 1945

>Armed US Junk Fought Navy's Final Battle

>SHANGHAI, Oct. 5 -- (UP) -- The United States Navy's last surface
>engagement of World War II was won off the China coast by a handful
>of Yanks aboard a pair of ancient junks.

>The Navy's first battle under sail since Civil War days took place
>on the night of Aug. 19 when Lt. Livingston "Swede" Swentzel, jr.,
>led a little two junk flotilla out of a coast town near Hainan, 
>Shanghai bound.

>The Americans spotted a gleaming .75 howitzer which immediately 
>belched smoke and fire, making a direct hit about 10 feet above the deck.  
>The blast killed a pair of Chinese tommy-gunners and knocked out a
>third and sprayed Captain Cox with fragments.

>When the junks were less than 100 yards apart, Reid got a rocket off
>which exploded squarely on the deck of the Jap ship.  Swentzel said,
>"You could see pieces of junk and pieces of Japs flying in all 
>directions."

>Questions raised:
	(NOBODY had a shot at this?)

>What kind of rocket did Reid fire at the junk?  Was his a lucky
>shot? i.e. What was the accuracy and explosive power of the rocket?
>Should it have blown up an ammo laden junk OR was it probably
>relying on schrapnel for its damage?
	The USN (and others) had a variety of shor bombardment rockets, commonly
	massed in LS(x) type carriers.  Small boat sailors seem to have a
	tendency to crowd on ANYthing that will make a useful noise 8)>>.
	(Consider some of the stuff loaded onto PTs by wars end....)
	Retrofit of a/c rockets is not improbable

>What exactly is a .75 howitzer?  I usually associate howitzers with
	A misprint, almost certainly.

>big bores lobbing high explosive shells in a high arced tragectory.
>Does the .75 mean it was only .75 inches in diameter?
>Or, does it refer to some ratio of bore to length?
	Did anybody NOT have a 75mm (+/-3 mm) howizer?  Probaly someones 75mm
	howitzer.

>What other types of ordinance were used on junks/sampans during
>WW II?  What was the most outragious of these?
	THAT i would like to know.

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
pierson@msd26.enet.dec.com	|I am the NRA.
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joel Upchurch   <upchrch!joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com>
Subject: M-16A2 Testing
Organization: Upchurch Computer Consulting, Orlando FL
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 17:21:18 GMT


From Joel Upchurch   <upchrch!joel@peora.sdc.ccur.com>

I'm curious about how the three round burst mode of the G11
compared to the burst mode of the other weapons. Since the
whole raison d'etre for the G11 was to provide tighter groups
in burst mode and to increase the probability of at least
one hit in this mode. I wouldn't expect the G11 to perform
as well as the M16A2 firing single rounds because of the
lighter bullets. It would also be interesting to know how
tight the burst groups on the G11 are compared to other
weapons are at various ranges.

I'd also be curious as to how the scores compared between the
male and female soldiers. Some of the ancedotal information
I've read indicates that novice women shoot better than novice
men. This is usually attributed to better fine muscle coordination.

(If your mail bounces use the address below.)
Joel Upchurch/Upchurch Computer Consulting/718 Galsworthy/Orlando, FL 32809
joel@peora.ccur.com {uiucuxc,hoptoad,petsd,ucf-cs}!peora!joel (407) 859-0982

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Allan Hong-Kay Ng <ahng@ee.ualberta.ca>
Subject: Re: China to coproduce Mig-31
Organization: University Of Alberta, Edmonton Canada
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 14:02:42 GMT


From Allan Hong-Kay Ng <ahng@ee.ualberta.ca>

Fengxi Zhou <fengxi@prancer.eche.ualberta.ca> writes:
>It has a long range, a good radar, has some sort of mini-AWACS capabilities, but
>China is getting Su-27s, which are potent interceptor and counter air fighter,
>have good (better?) radar, superb maneuverability and much more flexible, why
>buy Mig-31?

Hi 

	I think you have answered your own question.  The Chinese have a multi-
	front threat with its large frontier.  They also have interest in power
	projection into the far east.  Therefore an A/C with AWACS capabilities
	would facilitate both these ends.  This would also be a force multiplier
	for the Su-27s which could be could sit on Ground Alert Intercept  
	instead of on long caps which MiG-31's could do.  The MiG-31's also
	have a LR missile capability similar to the Phoenix (accuracy ?) 
	
	The other question of whether the F-16 can handle the Su-27.
	(This is all from memory my books are at home).  The Su-27 holds  
	a significant edge on the F-16 in thrust to weight ratio and in
	BVR missiles.  This gives the Su-27 the clear advantage in the
	BVR (Beyond Visual Range) arena. 

	In the close combat arena.  I'd have to say its a toss up.  I would
	expected that the F-16 would perform just alittle bit better than it
	would against an F-15A because of its (F-16's) lower wing loading
	when compared to an Su-27.  Sorry I couldn't give a more quantitative
	analysis.  Just remember what Chuck Yeager said "Its the man, not the
	machine".

							A. Ng



Newsgroups: sci.military