HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com (Steven.Schultz)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier info.wanted !
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:03:26 GMT
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.


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

In <C19nsK.39L@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Don Palmrose <dpe@inel.gov> writes:


>Saratoga,  Forrestal,  Enterprise,  Ranger,  Kitty Hawk,  Independence,  
>Kennedy,  Nimitz,  Vinson,  Eisenhower,  Roosevelt,  Lincoln 

>Am I missing 2 more?  Lexington may only be used for training now.

>[mod note -- Lexingtion is going to be de-commissioned (or may have been
>already, and Forrestal is taking her place.

>You missed the Constellation (part of the JFK/Kitty Hawk class)

>Midway was on it's way back from Japan to be de-commissioned

>Steve]
 
Also: George Washington and America. U.S.S. Lexington (AVT 16) had her last
aircraft landing in February 1991, No. 493,248. In March, 1991, it was decided
to decommission the ship because of maintenence problems. It was stricken
November 30, 1991, and is now a display at Corpus Christi, TX. It was replaced
by U.S.S. Forrestal, redesignated AVT 59 on February 4, 1992, after completing
her last deployment with Carrier Air Wing 6 (CVW 6) from Mayport, FL. She left
in May 1991, and returned that December. The ship entered a complex overhaul
at the Phillidelphia Naval Yard in September 1992, and is scheduled to
complete November, 1993. Most work will be removal of weapons and sensors. 
 
U.S.S. Midway (CV 41) was decommissioned April 11, 1992. The ship left her
long time homeport of Yokosuka, Japan, August 10, 1991. The ship began
stand-down October 1, 1991, after Operation Desert Storm. She is mothballed in
Pacific Fleet Reserve, I believe in Washington. She is mothballed with the
capability to relieve the Forrestal as AVT if Forrestal is returned to service
because of emergency.
 
>Older ships might have 2 to 4 5"Mk48s if they have not been removed
 
No carriers are fitted with them. 
-- 
Steve Schultz     Steven.Schultz@mixcom.com
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "Eugene N. Miya" <eugene@nas.nasa.gov>
Subject: Re: German nuclear research in WW2
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:42:21 GMT


From "Eugene N. Miya" <eugene@nas.nasa.gov>

In article <C1F74x.L3M@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Steve Williams
<swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil> writes:
>As the Allied forces overran the countries of France and Germany in 
>1944 and 1945, they searched for any existence of this proramme, but 
>found none.  After the war the American physicists interviewed the German
>physicists and reviewed their records, and concluded that the Germans
>did take a wrong turn along the way.  Furthermore, the French physicists
>weren't cooperating with the Germans.
>
>Note: All of this from my memory; please correct me if I am wrong.  

The only correction was that it was the British who interviewed the
Germans (Farmhall).  The Americans only did the capture and had minimal
contact.  The Americans did find the elements of an incomplete pile,
stockpiles of uranium, and tons of documents.  Specific reference was made
to Rhoades book, but in this case Sam Goudsmit's book on the Alsos Project
would be better.

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Associate Editor, Software and Publication Reviews
  Scientific Programming
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
Seeking Books to buy:	Bongard, Pattern Recognition
			3 down 1 to go.
From: fbrohs@email.tuwien.ac.at (Friedrich BROHS)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier info.wanted !
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:07:27 GMT
Organization: Technical University of Vienna


From Friedrich BROHS <fbrohs@email.tuwien.ac.at>

r


tvaxc.cc.monash.edu.au said:

r         England has 3 Invincible class carriers, with no immediate
r plans for replacing them. All 3 carriers are conventionally powered
r using turbines. Names: Invincible, Illustrious, ?.

The third ship is Ark Royal (Also was the name of their last 'real'
carrier).

On 25 Jan 93 17:23:38 GMT, bull
tkawa.ssl.fujitsu.co.jp

from "S.C.T. Martin"

I thought they had at least one other carrier they used in tghe
Falklands, the HMS HERMES

Isn't that right? It should be a rather small carrier with Harriers
aboard, but so is the Invincible, too if I remember correctly.
From: trh2m@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Thomas Richard Hubbard)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Carrier info.wanted !
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:23:45 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia


From trh2m@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Thomas Richard Hubbard)

In article <C1D840.94v@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com> writes:
>USA: A bunch. Let's see:
>CV-59, USS Forrestal (now our training carrier)
>CV-60, USS Saratoga
>CV-61, USS Ranger
>CV-62, USS Independence
>CV-63, USS Kitty Hawk
>CV-64, USS Constellation
>CVN-65, USS Enterprise
>CV-66, USS America
>CV-67, USS John F. Kennedy
>CVN-68, USS Nimitz
>CVN-69, USS Eisenhower
>CVN-70, USS Carl Vinson
>CVN-71, USS Theodore Roosevelt
>CVN-72, USS Lincoln

These don't count as commissioned ships, but the _USS United States_ and
the _USS Stenis_ are under construction at Newport News Shipbuilding.

Tom Hubbard
From: "Scott D. Young" <youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Subject: Re: Anti-aircraft
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:44:48 GMT


From "Scott D. Young" <youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca>

In <C143uK.3Fw@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za> writes:


>From MR KR COMAN <bakc@giraffe.ru.ac.za>
>	Everyone on the ground dropped what they were doing, grabbed 
>the nearest firearm and opened fire.   The story teller relates how heroic 
>it was to see his troop-sargeant standing on the turret of the Sherman tank 
>blazing away with a S&W Model 10......
>	The valley was a long one with two squadrons of tanks present, the
>Me flopped into the ground and burnt out.

   I seem to remember back during the Falklands war, an Argentine destroyer
   providing gunfire support for the amphibious landing was engaged at
   close range by the Royal Marines defending the bay. The ship was hit by
   over 1,000 rounds of small-calibre arms fire, which put its main gun out
   of action, took out some radar, and made it beat a hasty retrat. If you
   can make a ship go away, it should be (theoretically) possible to shoot down 
   planes with small-arms fire.

   Scott
From: walker-john@yale.edu (John Walker)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Bombers to guard and reserve units
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:59:52 GMT
Followup-To: sci.military
Organization: Yale University


From John Walker <walker-john@yale.edu>

038.  Bombers move
     WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Air Force plans to move B-1 and B-52 bombers to
Air
National Guard and Air Force Reserve units were announced Jan. 19 as part
of
the long-standing commitment to the total force policy, officials said.
     Units will convert from their current aircraft to the heavy
conventional
bombers.
     Specific decisions, including when and where, will be made after
necessary environmental analyses are done, officials said.


Does anybody know more about this?  Does this mean that *all* strategic
bombers will now be operated by Guard/Reserve units?

John Walker          
Yale University      
walker-john@yale.edu       
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com>
Subject: Re: Tomahawk cost
Organization: Anasazi Inc Phx Az USA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:40:50 GMT


From Brian Douglass <anasaz!briand@anasazi.com>

In article <C143ou.35n@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> wolit@mhuxd.att.com writes:
>
>From wolit@mhuxd.att.com
>
[deleted stuff]

>Since programming their flight paths is a lengthy process, they can
>only be used against fixed targets.  As such, they're really strategic,
>rather than tactical weapons;  the effectiveness of strategic bombing
>has never really been demonstrated.  

Strategic in the sense they hit targets behind the lines and not when the
troops call call for air strikes.  However, they're ability to strike C3I
targets and disrupt/destory the enemies' ability to effectively wage war
has great tactical advantage.

>Because of their slow speed, their
>warheads are non-penetrating, so they're not useful against underground
>bunkers, etc., but only against soft targets.  

They do have the ability to penetrate to standing reinforced conctrete
structures, ala the buildings that were destroyed in the latest attacks.
And if a car bomb with 1000 pounds of explosive can crumble a building, so
to can a cruise missile flying into the middle of it.

>With a nuclear warhead,
>they'd probably be effective weapons, to the extent that nuclear
>weapons are effective at all except as a deterrence, but those were
>outlawed by the INF agreement.  The anti-shipping version is terminally
>guided, and so would probably be effective were it not for the
>effectiveness of (cheaper) shipboard close-in defense systems.

The anti-shipping versions have a range of ~500 miles.  That is not a range
that CIWS work at. 

Also, back to fixed targets, there is another version of the TLAM that has
cluster munitions instead of a fixed warhead.  It's typical attack profile is
against targets that you want to maintain area denial, ala, an airfield.
Let one fly the length of a runway spitting out cluster bombs, and it
will take the enemy quite a while to clear the strip, by which time you
should be able to crater and cluster again.

>-- 
>Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Labs, Murray Hill, NJ; 908 582-2998
>          att!library!wolit or jan.wolitzky@att.com
>   (Affiliation given for identification purposes only)
>           Si fractum non sit, noli id reficere.

-- 
"The best government of all is that government which governs the least."
	Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: triremes
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:47:49 GMT


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

In <C17vrF.EvH@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> prichard@devon.larc.nasa.gov writes:

>only in the Med.  consider the merchant voyages of the Arabs (from Africa to
>southeast Asia).  not to mention the Vikings.  in terms of fleet operations,
>maybe only the Chinese going after Japan would qualify.

	Let's be careful not to mix centuries when it comes to the
Romans and their abuse of ships.  The triremes weren't used for very
long, being replaced by larger ships after only a few decades of use.
The Romans liked to wage land wars with soldiers, hence they went to
larger ships and attempted boarding techniques that looked a lot like
any land battle.  These larger ships were much more stable in open seas,
and the attrition rate dropped accordingly.  The Romans weren't much
for sailing, but managed to get roughly 20% of their army into Britain
without undue losses en route.

	In addition, around the time of Constantine the Roman army
underwent some papyrus-pushing and was divided up a lot.  The old
method was to take 20% of a legion or cohort and move it to a trouble
spot, thereby leaving a large garrison on the frontier.  The problem
was that the 20%, say a cohort or two, never made it back to the
mother unit.  This was recognized and the Romans wound up halving the
size of their units but making more units -- on paper.  They also
made up a "defense in depth" arrangement, where small units manned the
frontier and mobile reserves stayed to the rear, the idea being to move
them to trouble spots.  If that trouble spot were North Africa or
Britain, ships were needed.  Triremes being what they were, by the
300's or so they weren't in general usage for the Romans.

	Disclaimer: My books are at the office -- this is what I
remember from lecture today and a class a year ago or so, and I've
a mind like a steel sieve.

< 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.  >
<     USENET: Post to exotic, distant machines.  Meet exciting,      >
<                 unusual people.  And flame them.                   >
From: Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu (Blair Haworth)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Air launched tomahawk?
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:07:11 GMT
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service


From Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu>

In article <C1F6tL.KIn@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> John Walker <walker-john@yale.edu> writes:
>
>How jammable would this [SLAM] guidance be?  Presumably the defender might be
able
>to jam the control signal, or force the controlling aircraft to abandon
>control.

The SLAM datalink (same as the one on the ER/DL Walleye II variant) is
supposed to have extensive antijam capabilities - that's one reason it's
so expensive.

>Furthermore, can more than one missile be simultaneously guided?  Or must
>an entire flight of attack aircraft loiter 60 miles out from the target
>while the SLAMs fly in (at a measly 500 kts...)

They're not under positive command except to lock on for the terminal
phase, so at any given time n missiles can be cruising, one can be locking
on, and (I imagine) one terminally homing, maybe more under really ideal
conditions.  Multiply that by however many datalink pods are available
to the attackers.

--
   The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
     North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
        Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
           internet:  laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: trh2m@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Thomas Richard Hubbard)
Subject: Re: Carrier info.wanted !
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:42:11 GMT


From trh2m@kelvin.seas.Virginia.EDU (Thomas Richard Hubbard)

In article <C1F6zE.KuB@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> bull@vaxc.cc.monash.edu.au writes:
>[mod note -- From all the other posting, here is the "canonical" list
>of U.S. Carriers currently being used:
>
>Ship		Class		Propulsion
>----------	----------	-----------------
>Forrestal	Forrestal	Oil  (note -- used as training carrier)
>Ranger		Forrestal	Oil
>Saratoga	Forrestal	Oil
>Independence	Forrestal	Oil
>JFK		JFK/Kitty Hawk	Oil
>Constellation	JFK/Kitty Hawk	Oil
>America		JFK/Kitty Hawk	Oil
>Kitty Hawk	JFK/Kitty Hawk	Oil
>Enterprise	Enterprise	Nuclear
>Nimitz		Nimitz		Nuclear
>Eisenhower	Nimitz		Nuclear
>Vinson		Nimitz		Nuclear
>Roosevelt	Nimitz		Nuclear
>Lincoln		Nimitz		Nuclear

The USS George Washington was commissioned on Independence Day, '92
at Pier 12, Norolk Naval Base, Norfolk, Va.

Tom Hubbard

[mod note -- Thanks for the update.  Hadn't heard the the GW had been
commissioned.

STeve[
From: lioness@maple.circa.ufl.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Fuller's "Military History of the Western World"
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:23:36 GMT
Organization: Center for Instructional and Research Computing Activities


From lioness@maple.circa.ufl.edu



Has anyone got J. Fuller's "A Military History of the Western World
Vols. 1-3"?  It looks like it covers everything from the Spanish
Armada through WWII.  I can get each volume for 14.95, but I don't
know anything about the actual books ( I can't special order unless
I plan on buying, and I've never actually held any of the books ).

How accurate/good are the books' analyses?  Are there any better books
out there that cover advanced strategy and tactics?

Brian
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: Tomahawk cost
Organization: Sun
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:37:40 GMT


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

In article <C143ou.35n@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> wolit@mhuxd.att.com writes:
>
>From wolit@mhuxd.att.com
>
>In article <C124qz.7Fq@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, garry@alice.att.com (garry hodgson) writes:
> 
>> I was listening to reports of our cruise missile
>> attack on Iraq.  They said we launched 30-40 Tomahawk cruise
>> missiles at the Iraqi nuclear facility.  I got curious,
>> just how much do each of these cost?  It is clear that
>
>They're about a million bucks apiece.  

The word that came out later said that the 40 missile raid cost
$24M...so they're somewhat less than $1M each.  Maybe there's a
discount for quantity buys?

>Firing 40 of them at Baghdad
>yesterday didn't dissuade the Iraqis from turning on their air defense
>fire control radars or flying in the "no-fly" zone today, so I guess
>they weren't very effective.  

They weren't intended or used to suppress anti-air.

The Iraqis are pretty sure that no populated area would be a target for
Allied forces, so they aren't too worried.  The targets likely to be
chosen, though expensive to repair, also don't involve many people as
potential targets.

Notice that during the attack, lights stayed on in Baghdad, and it doesn't
look as though street traffic was too concerned.

>Ask the people at the al-Rashid hotel
>how accurate they are.  They carry about 1000 lbs of explosive.

And by looking at the damage to the hotel, you can bet that the warhead
did not go off.

As for accuracy...if the missile hadn't been hit by AA fire, it wouldn't
have hit the hotel.

-- 
-------------------------------------------------------
| Some things are too important not to give away      |
| to everybody else and have none left for yourself.  |
|------------------------ Dieter the car salesman-----|
From: fist@iscp.bellcore.com (Richard Pierson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Geneva Convention (was Re: Treatment of Jewish Pow's by Germans)
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:07:22 GMT
Organization: Bellcore


From Richard Pierson <fist@iscp.bellcore.com>

Well my DD form 2A that has my picture/grade/signature/ssn
and expiration date on the front says on the back "Identification
for purposes of the geneva concention relative to treatment
of prisioners of war of August 12, 1949" and it is actually
called Geneva convention identification card and not "Military
Identification card". Interesting, over 20 years and I never
looked at the fine print before, always took it for granted.
I will look at my old pink ID from the early 70's and see
if the geneva conv is the same year on that if I remember
when I get home tonight.
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.bellcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I BUY my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.
Xref: sparky sci.military:12791 soc.history:10923
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Saturday, 23 January, 1943
Date: 24 Jan 93 15:52:43 GMT
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department


From military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)

Saturday, 23 January, 1943

Montgomery's 8th Army enters Tripoli, abandoned by the Axis.

Aircraft from the carrier USS Saratoga join the cruisers USS Nashville and
Helena in bombarding a Japanese airfield on Kolombangara Island in the
Solomons.  On Guadalcanal, the Americans capture the strongpoint of Gifu,
ending Japanese resistance on Mount Austen, and press the Japanese
troops as they withdraw toward Cape Esperance.

Soviet forces recapture the Caucasus city of Armavir and enter Voronezh.
Inside the Stalingrad pocket, the German 6th Army is surviving on daily
rations of 1 3/4 ounce of bread and 1 3/4 pints of vegetable soup per man.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker			            military@att.att.com
Send submissions for "50 Years Ago" to military@cbnews.att.com

"Last week the Houdry Process Corporation and the Standard Oil Company of
New Jersey announced the successful development of methods for the
production of gasoline compared with which the ordinary kind sold by
filling stations is a feeble milk-and-water concoction... Heavy bombers and
passenger planes carrying unprecedented loads and traveling unprecedented
distances without refueling, automobiles covering forty miles on a gallon of
super gasoline... all this and more was promised." - Waldemar Kaempffert,
"Science News in Review," The New York Times, describing the new process of
catalytic refining
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Air launched tomahawk?
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:55:48 GMT


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

In article <C1F6tL.KIn@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> walker-john@yale.edu (John Walker) writes:
>
>How jammable would this guidance be?  Presumably the defender might be able
>to jam the control signal, or force the controlling aircraft to abandon
>control.
>
>Furthermore, can more than one missile be simultaneously guided?  Or must
>an entire flight of attack aircraft loiter 60 miles out from the target
>while the SLAMs fly in (at a measly 500 kts...)
>
>Comments?  Info?
>
>Walker

The following is what Travis Haddock told me in an e-mail letter (just giving 
credit where credit is due):

* The SLAM has a range of 75 miles, not 60 as I originally said (while this may
not seem like much, the difference is huge to air defense teams).

* The terminal control guidance is Imaging Infra-Red, not TV as I originally 
said.

* The missiles are programmed to hit a certain target, and the IIR system and 
controller may only be needed for minor corrections.

* A usual attack pattern is for several SLAM's to be sent after one target 
group.  This would allow the operator to do an immediate damage assessment of 
the first missiles effectiveness, and if the hit was good, move the second 
missile to a new target.  If the hit was not good, then he could just send the 
missile in to continue what the first started.  This pattern would continue 
until the last missile hit.

* One launch aircraft can control several missiles.

In addition, several people have mentioned jamming the control beam as a 
possibility.  The control is by data link, which is much more difficult to jam 
than a normal radio signal. 

Hope this clears up some confusion
Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Steven.Schultz <Steven.Schultz@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: Re: Harpoon and tactics.
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:42:31 GMT


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

In <C1F6tA.KF6@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Christopher John Arnold <gorilla@cats.ucsc.edu> writes:

>First of all, does anyone have any idea if Harpoons have
>been mounted on navy helos?

No helicopters carry Harpoon. 

-- 
Steve Schultz     Steven.Schultz@mixcom.com

Newsgroups: sci.military