HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Nuclear reactors in space.
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:00:25 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


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

>From th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Tom Oates)
>Someone posted re. possible dangers of nuclear reactors in space...
>...[at] 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.

Not correct, actually.  What it does is to take the satellite high enough
that it will not reenter for a long time, long enough for most of the
radioactive fission products to decay.

>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...

Actually, if the reactor *burns up* it's no big deal, no worse than
long-distance fallout from an old-style atmospheric H-bomb test.  The
problem comes if major pieces survive to reach the ground.  The backup
system if the orbit-raising maneuver fails is to eject the reactor core
from the satellite (!), so that the core will not be protected by the rest
of the satellite during reentry and will burn up completely.  This
backup system has been used once or twice, I believe.

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

Nope, wrong, this is not a problem.  The Soviets *did* have at least
one launch failure.  The uranium that the reactor is originally loaded
with is not particularly radioactive and not very dangerous.  The hazard
is from the fission products that build up after the reactor has
been *operating* for a while.  So the reactor is launched "cold", shut
down, and is not operated until it's in orbit.


The reason the Soviet radarsats were nuclear-powered, by the way, was
that they needed a lot of power and operated at very low altitude,
where atmospheric drag from large solar arrays would have shortened
their orbital lifetime unacceptably.

And the reason I'm saying "Soviet" rather than "Russian" is that the
nuclear-radarsat program seems to have been suspended several years ago.
They haven't launched any in recent times.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 16:32:48 GMT


From megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)

In article <BvyqqE.5s9@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>The Valkyrie at Dayton impresses you with its immensity. The huge air in-
>takes are arrayed in a row under the wing. The bottom of the aircraft 

Trivia: The XB-70's intakes are still the largest variable intakes ever
designed. They fed three engines apiece.

###############################################################################
# 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: "Gene A. Kennedy" <gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us>
Subject: Re: WWII: Why Japan didn't invade Hawaii
Organization: Ham Radio Operator, Houston Tex.
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:36:09 GMT


From "Gene A. Kennedy" <gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us>


From "Gene A. Kennedy" <gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us>

jaskew@spam.maths.adelaide.edu.au (Joseph Askew) writes:

> With all due respect to the writer of this, the *only* reason Japan entered
> the Second World War was because the Americans forced them to. The US had
> placed an oil embargo on the Japanese and would not lift it until Japan
> withdrew from *all* of its conquests since 1904. The Japanese economy and
> military power were rapidly grinding down and they felt the only responce
> they had left was to grab the oil reserves of the Dutch East Indies ie
> Indonesia. The real question is why the US wanted to force the Japanese
> into fighting. According the US government memos the Roosevelt adminstration
> wanted to enter the War but could not get Congress to agree. Thus they placed
> an embargo on Japan with the intention of getting Japan to attack the US and
> so put the US in the War. Unfortunately it appears that the US underestimated
> the Japanese thinking they could only attack the Philipines and so were
> suprised. The Japanese always knew they could not win, their only goal was to
> grab as much as they could and then grind the US down in a war of attrition.
> Citations and sources available on request.
> 
 Just to clarify this a bit (no "flame" intended), this is part of 
what is often called the "revisionist" theory. While this theory 
is accepted by some historians, it is not accepted by all and is 
in fact the subject of considerable debate. I'am not sure the 
issues here will ever be settled since parts of it, including the 
"desire of the Roosevelt administration to enter the war" being 
the reason for the embargo and other sanctions against Japan, are 
not provable, but are only infered on the basis of memos, notes, 
etc. What can't be "proven" is what was actually in Roosevelt's 
mind when the final decisions were made. Having read some very 
good works on both sides of this issue, I'am still not certain 
which side has the better arguments. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
             Gene Kennedy - Ham Radio Operator, N5ABI -
                         gak@n5abi.hou.tx.us
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Uzi SMG: Desert Performance
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:38:37 GMT


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

>From swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg (Perry Morrison (Dr))
>The Uzi submachine gun was developed by the israelis and by most
>account was most successful in combat and as an export item. I've always
>wondered how a 9mm weapon could be effective in the desert especially
>with the ranges involved...

Contrary to long-standing mythology, even in the desert most *infantry*
combat takes place at very short ranges.  And I suspect you'd find that
the Israelis issue Uzis mostly for urban warfare and the like, although
I don't know for sure.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk (Adrian Hurt)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Nuclear aircraft (was Re: B-70)
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:42:31 GMT
Organization: Dept of Computing & Electrical Engineering, Heriot-Watt


From Adrian Hurt <adrian@cs.heriot-watt.ac.uk>

In article <Bvwqy3.Jww@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> carey@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Charlie Carey (carey@moefine.lerc.nasa.gov)) writes:
>BTW the idea is not dead, the reactor is now on the ground and power is beamed 
>to the aircraft, either directly (for a point defense fighter) or via space 
>based mirrors for longer ranged flights. Laser/Maser power tranmission is the
>power transmission scheme usually proposed.
> ...
>Wouldn't recommend inverted flight without telling the ground station 8-)

How would the aircraft receive the beam when it rolled over?  If it could
not do so, then the idea of making a fighter lighter and presumably more
agile is completely wasted if it can't use that agility!

It might be a feasible power system for something like a bomber, a transport
or a commercial aircraft, none of which are generally noted for doing such
things as Immelmann turns.

-- 
 "Keyboard?  How quaint!" - M. Scott

 Adrian Hurt			     |	JANET:  adrian@uk.ac.hw.cs
 UUCP: ..!uknet!cs.hw.ac.uk!adrian   |  ARPA:   adrian@cs.hw.ac.uk
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mgeorgy@vmsclst1.sc.csupomona.edu
Subject: Aurora FAQ???
Organization: Computer Science Computational Systems
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:27:35 GMT


From mgeorgy@vmsclst1.sc.csupomona.edu

Can anyone tell me if either this group or Sci.Aero has composed a FAQ on
the Aurora. Last I heard one was being put together but nothing since.

Please reply by posting directly to the Net, as my mail system isn't working
properly...

Thanx,
MG

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: stankus@leland.Stanford.EDU (John J. Stankus)
Subject: Re: Johnston Atoll/Chemical Weapons
Organization: Department of Chemistry, Stanford University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 02:43:13 GMT


From stankus@leland.Stanford.EDU (John J. Stankus)

In article <Bvq479.Co7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> s026779a@edinboro.edu writes:
>
>From s026779a@edinboro.edu
>
>Destruction of Johnston Atoll
>
>	I'm doing research on America's aging stockpile of chemical weapons and the effect that burning such weapons has on the environment.  To that point I am looking for any information in regards to the various types and amounts of
>chemicals weapons stockpiled by the U.S. since WWI.
>
>	If anyone has any information on Johnston Atoll, located in Hawaii, or
                       actually 350 miles southwest of Hawaii   ^^^^^^^^

>The Johnston Atoll Chemical Agent Disposal System, please forward to:
>
>	S026779A.edu Edinboro University of Pennsylvania
>

Sorry about posting this but my email bounced (probably problems on this end)

You may want to try calling or writing Southwest Research Institute (SwRI)in
San Antonio, TX.  They are the ones who run the chemical weapons disposal
facility on Johnston Atoll.  The atoll is basically an airport with the
chemical disposal plant on one side, housing on the other and a golf course
in the in between.  
	I've seen some of their recruiting literature for chemists, you get
a bonus for sticking out a full one year tour.

John J. Stankus  N5PEE				Chemistry Department
stankus@leland.stanford.edu			Stanford University


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dave Pierson <pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com>
Subject: Re: Questions on EMP
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:39:49 GMT


From Dave Pierson <pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com>


From Dave Pierson <pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com>

	Disclaimer:
	There is a lot i don't know about EMP.  I'd like to know more.

In article <Bw2JBv.A6L@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
writes, in part:

>EMP is caused by a lot of charged particles very suddenly being created high 
>in the atmosphere so that they can travel along the earth's magnetic field 
>lines.  It has to occur above the atmosphere because a burst of charged 
>particles in the air would be quickly neutralized by interaction with the 
>surrounding air molecules.  

	My reading (of what i take to be authoritative, open sources (Effects
	of Nuclear Weapons, for one), indicates that any nuclear blast (1)
	will have an associated EMP.  The high altitude ones are militarily
	useful, as the spread the effects over the maximum footprint for the
	given device yield.  (low altitide ones tend to have an EMP which
	is less damaging than the accompanying blast/thermals/radiation.)

>3.  The results of EMP would be the equivalent of a lighting bolt hitting
>nearby your computer.

	Reliable reports indicate that the military was a tad shocked to
	discover (ca 1960) how vulnerable some of their wunnerful solid state
	toys were to N(atural) EMP as well as N(uclear) EMP....  If true, some
	of the EMP hardening furor may have been againt nature, as well as
	against nuclear.

	(1) Effects of Nuclear Weapons asserts that even conventional explosives
	have an EMP associated with them.  Apparently only observable in large
	explosions.  

(PS to Don: Did you get to the PGII Con in Idaho Falls?)

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
pierson@msd27.enet.dec.com	|I am the NRA.
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Black Sea Fleet question
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:32:04 GMT


From "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>

In article <BvnEtp.Ivt@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene) writes:
>
>outcomes of the costody dispute (final settlement of which has been postponed
>to 1995) and I need to know what kind of condition the Fleet is in. 
>Particularly, I remember hearing that several major surface comatants have been
>laid up due to lack of spares, crews etc.  Can anyone give me more details?  I

Last I heard, the carrier Minsk was out of service because she stripped a
turbine a couple of years ago, and they didn't have any spares. But I think
that she is assigned to the Northern Fleet, not the Black Sea Fleet.

Check USNI Proceedings. They usually have good reports. Check your local 
library.

			David Wells
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Sparrows and the Turkish DD
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:00:15 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology


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

>[ 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 ]

Not quite.  Sea Sparrow, like all modern Sparrows, uses semi-active radar
homing.  The missile homes on radar reflections from the target.  The
launch platform is indeed responsible for illuminating the target, but
the missile homes on the illuminated spot rather than trying to remain
within the beam.  (Beam-riding guidance has been used in the past, but
it is generally considered obsolete.)
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu
Subject: Re: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:30:19 GMT


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu


From ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu

In article <BvvIss.DKB@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:
> 
> From fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
> 
> In article <BvnF0r.J5H@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
>>> I would have to disagree. The West (US) has the capability to build titanium
>>> submarines, but the cost is prohibitive...
> 
>>I didn't mean the capability to develop the ability to build titanium hulls.
>>I meant the capability to build them now. There are alot of specialized tech-
>>niques involved from what I've read. I'm sure the US could develop the abil-
>>ity if the desire was there but the US does NOT currently have that ability.
> 
> I'm not sure what "specialized techniques" you mean: The United States
> already builds _many_ things with titanium parts, and the techniques
> for fabricating components out of titanium are well understood. The
> only way the United States is behind the CSI is the _size_ of the parts
> (e.g. aircraft wing-sized parts vs. submarine hull-sized parts). I
> don't think any significant techniques would be required to scale up...
> 
>                                              Frank Crary
>                                              CU Boulder

Well until we *actually* try to build one we won't know for sure. We can
surmise but that's only an educated guess. In the old Soviet Union the
gov. could say,"We want a titanium sunmarine NOW" and the Defense Minister
could say ,"Coming right up". The DoD CAN'T say that here in the US so
it sure seems to me that the Soviets had a capability we didn't. That
doesn't mean we *couldn't* acquire the capability, we just don't have it
available now. Heck, the Japanese could do anything the US
or FUSSR could *if* they really wanted to put the effort into it, but that
doesn't mean their military production capability is anywhere near what
the US or FUSSR had achieved. There's a BIG difference between the ability
to acquire a production capabilty & having that capability currently online.

PHIL


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Organization: Chalmers University of Technology
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 15:23:10 GMT


From d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell)


In article <Bvq4Kn.DBu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:
>> In article <BvE5rA.2ry@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) writes:
>> >In the WW2 submarine war against Japan, US sub commanders considered
>> >shallow or restricted water to be suicide.

>Germans feared being cought in the shallow coastal waters because the
>shallow water "magnified the effects of the depth charges".

  There is an article entiteled "Stealhy submarines and ASW" in the lastest
(#9) issue of Military Technology that covers shallow water ASW. I'll try
to summarize it sometime next week.
  
>Corky Scott

-bertil-
--
"It can be shown that for any nutty theory, beyond-the-fringe political view or
 strange religion there exists a proponent on the Net. The proof is left as an
 exercise for your kill-file."
		"Revive the Swedish-Madagascan Brigand Pact!"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pierson@cimcad.enet.dec.com (Dave Pierson)
Subject: Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:43:46 GMT


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


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

In article <Bvtp4A.6Gs@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, cbj005@cch.coventry.ac.uk
(The Mistress) writes...

>	During early WW2 in the French campaign, the British Army  at  the  time
>used  the  Bofors  40mm  gun  as  an  Anti Aircraft weapon on a cruciform
>mounting, what I am trying to find out is whether the British  Army  ever
>used  this AA weapon as a weapon against ground troops. The Germans used their
>88mm AA gun as a tank killer and I wonder if the British did the same.

	Not exactly the question, but i stumbled on a reference to the US Army
	using _their_ 90mm in an Antitank role.  Dunno what the UK equivalent
	would have been.  (And assuming that someboy had AT shells for an AA
	gun....)

thanks
dave pierson			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
146 Main St			|I am the NRA.
Maynard, Mass		01754	pierson@msd27.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: 2120158@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()
Subject: Re: subs
Keywords: eric -nuclear winter
Organization: school of Mathematics UNSW
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:36:49 GMT


From 2120158@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()


From 2120158@hydra.maths.unsw.EDU.AU ()

In article <BvxDun.MCu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> elada@eos.ncsu.edu (ERIC  LADA) writes:
>
>From elada@eos.ncsu.edu (ERIC  LADA)
>
>	Hi agian.  I was just wondering what kind of self-defense/offense 
>mechanisms the boomers have.  Do they have any torpedos, or anything non-nuke

Torpedo's. They carry a limited number though.

>that can go out and kill any ship or attack sub that following them,or is there
>only defense standing still and staying quite.  Also do todays subs really have
>any advantage over ships.  Can military satalites track the subs under-water?

I don't believe so. In the hunt for Red October, a satalite "saw" subs
by their heat when near the surface, but at operating depths, I doubt it.
Subs might be seen by the shock waves (due to water displacement), but as a
first year engineer, your guess is as good as mine.

>What about that new SEAL underwater delivery vehicle(or something like)  Can 
>that be detected at all?  And finally do subs still pop up under the polar-ice
>caps(now that the Soviet Union is no longer?) What kind of subs did/do this(
>boomers or attack)

 SEAL transports are simply refurnished boomers, and as such probably still
act like one until they get close to the shore, where they try (?) to act like
attack subs. And the only modern subs that "crack" the ice are those on
scientific missions or have to surface for communications.
  Only the old boomers ever had to break the ice to launch their missile,
modern boats find thin spots in the ice (called polyarna's, or something like
that) where I believe the missiles break through themselves.

Matthew.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Subject: the F-18L
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:27:56 GMT


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

I just saw a reference to the F-18L.  What is an F-18L?  I've heard of
A-E, but not this one.

While one the subject of naval aviation, does anybody know how much an
F14a+ costs?  It must be more expensive than the F18E, or did
Congress/Bush do something *really* weird?
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: F-14 as a strike bomber
Date: 12 Oct 92 16:32:32 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

Rick Lafford <lafford@serum.clpd.Kodak.COM> writes:

>Just when I thought the Navy had begun to conserve the F-14 airframes
>they had for fleet protection, the following appears in Navy News.

>---------------------------
> NNS140.  "Bombcats" Join the Fleet
>ON BOARD USS SARATOGA (NNS) -- Two fighter squadrons embarked on
>board USS Saratoga (CV 60) recently received the hardware necessary
>to add the strike mission to the list of F-14B capabilities.
>     Maintenance crews from Fighter Squadrons 74 and 103 installed
>the bomb racks while the ship was inport Trieste, Italy.  
>     The morning Saratoga sailed from its pierside berth, the first
>"Bombcats" announced their arrival with authority, executing a 1700-
>mile bombing mission to the Wadi Natrun Range in Egypt from
>Saratoga's deck in the Northern Adriatic Sea.  Over the course of two
>days, four missions were conducted and 27 aircraft delivered ordnance
>on target and on time.

	Does anybody mind if I ponder this a bit more?  The Navy is
losing its A-6's soon, and the F/A-18 just isn't in the same class as
the F-14 insofar as ordinance, avionics, range, and speed are
concerned; a poor interceptor, in other words.  It is a better fighter
I am told, and far better at ground support.

	The way I see it, this would allow the Navy a stop-gap
measure to mitigate the effect of the reduced numbers of A-6's, and
in a combined A-6 and F-14 strike mission would alleviate the need
for fighter escort.  Furthermore, the F-14 has its limited ground-support
capabilities enhanced this way, allowing for the F-14 to be used
where F-18's are scarce or not best utilized.  Interesting...

	Does anybody have any better guesses as to why interceptors are
being fitted as bombers, how much ordinance they can carry, and what
(if any) modifications have been done to the avionics for this?

<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.>