HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: F-14 as a strike bomber
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:43:49 GMT
Article-I.D.: law7.Bw2Jt1.B0v
Organization: Emory University, Atlanta, GA


From labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)


From labrg@emory.edu (Ryan Montieth Gill)


:  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.

	Talk about the last bomber anyone would want to intercept....


Radar operator:	Incoming Bombers at 125 nm incoming at 425 knots...
			Change to heading 216 and accelerate to 500 knots.
Interceptor pilot: Rodger, I have active radar contact...

Radar Operator: Incoming bogie has increased speed to 600 knots...

Interceptor pilot: What!!?? I'm getting lit with a target
acquisition radar!!! He's launching a missle!!! He can't have the
range!!!

BOOM!!!

Need I say more ??
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Subject: Re: the F-18L 
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 21:47:21 GMT


From wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)

In article <Bvq3uK.C50@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton) writes: 
> 
> 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.
The -L was an abortive land based Hornet.  It dispensed with the wing-fold (or
at least with automatic wing fold) and used lightweight landing gear (the
standard types are very heavy to deal with carrier traps)  It would have been
lighter and presumably carried more fuel for more range but it was never
bought.
 
> 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?
I agree that the F-18E/F is *really* weird but the F-14A+ (now F-14B I'm told)
is not a workable substitute since the F-14 doesn't have any strike capability
until F-14D and would require Quickstrike or some such to really do well at the
job.  Personally, I thenk F-14 Quickstrike or Super Tomcat would be a better
idea but that is no longer an option since the Long Island lobby lost out to
the St. Louis lobby ;-)
-- 
Tom Schoene
wwo@cornella.cit.cornell.edu  -or- wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
"Whenever you're holding all the cards why does everyone else turn
out to be playing chess?"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: andrewh@panix.com (Andrew Huie)
Subject: Re: New Carrier Plan
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 16:27:31 GMT


From andrewh@panix.com (Andrew Huie)


OK.  People have been arguing on whether or not the Marines air force should be
cut.  The argument seems convincing to me that the entire air force shouldn't
be cut, but it is not so convincing why the marines need fighters like the
F-18.  If their primary use is air cover, why not use AF or Naval assets
instead, since that tends to be their specialty?  I have no argument with
the Marines' having ground support aircraft, but air combat fighters does
seem redundant.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jfriday@westmark.Stanford.EDU (The Crazy Archivist)
Subject: Re: B-70
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:28:00 GMT


From jfriday@westmark.Stanford.EDU (The Crazy Archivist)

Here's my two cents (at least what I can remember.)

The XB-70 (that's as far as the project got) used six jet engines (the
designation J93 comes to mind.)  It was intended to use a boron-based
fuel (well it was something involving boron), but I don't know that anything
much became of that plan so they used conventional jet engines.

The outer third or so of each wing bends downward to help the plane ride
on it's supersonic shockwave.

I don't know what kind of bombload it was intended to carry.

The Mig-25 was developed as a plane to intercept it, but when the B-70
program was cancelled it was reassigned to other duties (recon, etc.)




Paul "Joe Friday" Stacy (not net.police)       Buffalo State College, New York
STACY54@SNYBUFVA.BITNET (Buffalo State College VAX)                JUST THE
jfriday@westmark.stanford.edu (Stanford, California UNIX)       "VAX", MA'AM!
Disclaimer:  This isn't the opinion of the school, police, Chief of Detective
             Staff Brown, Planet Spaceball, Starfleet Command, or the Pentagon.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us
Subject: Re: Hybrid subs (was Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?)
Summary: Could we hear more?
Organization: :
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:33:40 GMT


From mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us


From mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us

In article <BvvsrK.FBz@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes:
> >From grant@psych.toronto.edu (Stuart Grant)
> >during the discussion came the idea that a small submarine, could be
> >fitted with a small nuclear reactor. The reactor was a derivative of the
> >small Slowpoke reactor. ...  it was a safe design (as shown by it's use
> >in small non-military sites for many years)...
 
> ...  The Slowpoke design is one of the few reactors known as "inherently
> safe", built to be naturally stable without any help from control systems.
> There is nothing you can do that will make it melt down.  ...
 
> Unfortunately, while it's been popular as a small research reactor for
> obvious reasons, the design does not scale up well.

Perhaps Henry could be coaxed to write a little more about this subject?
Nuclear power, with its problems and its potentials, must surely be of
military interest.
-- 
 (This man's opinions are his own.)
 From mole-end				Mark Terribile

 mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us, Somewhere in Matawan, NJ

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: andrewh@panix.com (Andrew Huie)
Subject: Questions on EMP
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:14:02 GMT


From andrewh@panix.com (Andrew Huie)

1. Does anyone know at what altitude a nuclear device would have to explode in
order to create an EMP that would severely disrupt New York City (esp. the
commercial and business districts) without causing serious collateral damage 
due to radiation, shockwave, etc.?

2. How powerful would the bomb have to be?

3. What effect would this have on communications, electronics, and magnetic
storage media?

4. Is there a way (theoretically) to create an EMP to disable an area of about
1 mile radius without using a nuclear device?  It was mentioned in this group 
earlier that the British(?) were attempting to build such a device.  How large
would it be?

Any answers will be appreciated.  Thanks!


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rlbell@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell)
Subject: Re: New IR Jammer on Apache helicopters?
Organization: University of Waterloo
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 16:40:16 GMT


From rlbell@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell)


From rlbell@babbage.uwaterloo.ca (Richard Bell)

In article <Bvvwvq.G9o@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> hhtra@usho21.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock) writes:
>
>  You can't jam IR! 
>  Well... I quess ya could.  What you'd need is a big bottle of liquid
>  nitrogren and a spray nozzle mounted on top.  Then, when threatened,
>  simply spray the liquid nitrogren all over you and presto...
>  no more IR!
>
IR is jammed in the same fashion as old radar conical scan systems.  The jammer
sends random bright pulses to the seeker, in the hope of giving the seeker
spurious steering orders.  IR seekers are very expensive, so it is only 
recently that IR seekers could be given planar arrays (which would not be 
fooled).  The other way to defeat an IR seeker is to burn out its detectors,
unlike microwave devices, it is possible to overload them with a jamming 
signal (It is possible; it has been done, but it is too impractical for
deployment).



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Rick Lafford <lafford@serum.clpd.Kodak.COM>
Subject: Re: Kinetic energy weapons, A-10, GAU/8A
Organization: NCR Corporation -- Law Department
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 1992 01:14:25 GMT


From Rick Lafford <lafford@serum.clpd.Kodak.COM>



Just a few factiods for those persons interested in the A-10's GAU-8/A
gun system and the depleted uranium API ammo designed for it.

PGU-14/B API
-------------
Round length: 		290mm
Round weight:		727g
Projectile weight:	425g
Muzzle velocity:	982m/sec (3,225ft/sec)

API consists of a DU core roughly 15mm in diameter, held in an aluminum
base and with an aluminum nose shield. At the point of impact, the energy
is expended against a portion of armor equal to only 25% of the original
shell size. The DU has a small amount of titanium added for hardness and
presents no particular machining problems as it is worked in a closed 
environment. The projectile uses 2 plastic rotator bands to decrease
barrel wear and is the first aircraft fired projectile use this.

DU was chosed because it is 1/8 the price of tungsten and is 60% denser
than lead. It is also pyrophoric which means it is an incendary as well
as a kinetic energy round.

The GAU-8/A cannon specifics follow:
--------------------------------------
Weight full up:		2066lb.
Length:				19.88 ft.
Recoil energy:		10,000 ft/lb.
Barrel weight:		55 lb./each x 7
Ammo capacity:		1174 - 1350 rounds
Max. diameter:		9.46 ft. (ammo rotor)
Firing rate:		2100 or 4200 rps selectable
Power:				Dual hydraulic power packs

The firing barrel is exactly on centerline at the point of firing and
the whole gun assembly is tilted 2 degrees down to put the recoil
line directly thru the aircraft CG. There is very little pitching 
moment when the gun is fired.

Barrels are self-cleaning due to plastic rotator bands on projectiles and 
are rated for 21,000 rounds each before replacement. Firing at the higher
rate, the gun will fire approx. 50 rounds in the first second. Losing 
one power pack will half the firing rate.  Test trail have shown that
a longer burst than 1 second is overkill against most targets. The gun
is not the primary weapon of the A-10, the AGM-65A/D is but the GAU-8/A
will kill or cripple all know vehicle types. This can be due to penetration,
jamming the turret mechanism and/or destroying the drive train/tracks. 
Test firing photographs even show one shell penetrating the gun barrel on
one test target.

BTW- I still have two fired practice rounds left that I'll gladly send
to the first two persons sending me a check to cover postage and handling.
($5 in the US).

	Enjoy,
	Rick

---------------------------------------------------------
Source: 
	Modern Combat Aircraft #28: A-10 Thunderbolt II by Mike Spick
	Motorbooks International









Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: WWII -- Why didn't Japan invade Hawaii?
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:46:23 GMT
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH


From "Charles K. Scott" <Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu>

In article <Bw2JHB.AD4@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
mat@mole-end.matawan.nj.us writes:

> Does anyone have more information, or a good reference on Spruance?  _MaM_
> mentions that he was a gunship admiral who took over a carrier fleet and
> made excellent use of it.  Was this the shining point of his career, or was
> it one of end-to-end excellence?

Most texts say Spruance was highly competant throughout the war.  Some
say his handling of the fleet during the Battle of the Phillipine Sea
was overly cautious enabling the Japanese to escape and show up again
during Leyte Gulf, but conflicting reports of the Japanese location
made decisions difficult.  Then at Okinawa when the Yamato was
discovered approaching, he made a curious committment of surface
gunships which would have resulted in a surface battle had not Mitscher
launched his aircraft for the attack.  No one is sure why the
battleships were being sent toward the Yamato (some say he was
reverting to his gunnery based background), but the carrier aircraft
ended the question by sinking it within a few hours.

He certainly had the competance to handle the fleet and was far better
in this capacity than William Halsey who seemed unable to grasp the
intricacies of major fleet movements and even blundered into the path
of several typhoons prompting a book entitled "Halseys Typhoons",
according to some texts.  

Many historians feel that Spruances greatest maneuver was to withdraw
from the battle area during the evening of the first day of battle at
Midway instead of closing with the Japanese.  This kept the woefully
undergunned American fleet out of harms way when the Japanese were at
that time steaming in their direction hoping to catch them in a night
battle.  Whether Spruances natural caution caused him to do this (it
was not known until after the war that the Japanese had attempted to
close the Americans), or his reaction to his orders from CINCPAC which
stated that he was to cause as much harm to the enemy as possible
without putting his own fleet in jepardy, no one will ever know.  But
at the time, the maneuver and fleet direction (away from the enemy)
caused not a little consternation amongst the officers in the fleet who
felt they should be closing with the Japanese in anticipation of
further action the following day.  The action was reviewed at Pearl
Harbor when the fleet returned from Midway and Spruance praised and
congratulated for his handling of the battle.

Corky Scott
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: Bofors 40mm AA in WW2
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:42:59 GMT


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au

In article <BvytKF.rp@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes:
> 
> From anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee)
> 
> 
> In <Bvtp4A.6Gs@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> cbj005@cch.coventry.ac.uk (The Mistress) writes:
> 
> The German 37mm anti-tank gun was used widely in early part of the war.
> Were they scrapped in favour of bigger calibre ?

Yep.  The little 37mm was not much better than the English 2pdr, although it
did have the advantage of having a HE capacity (however small) whereas the 2
pdr was a solid shot only weapon.  Some of these guns survived later in the war
in a "squeeze bore" fashion but due to the high rate of wear on the barrel it
was more productive to concentrate on the PaK 47, 50 range of weapons.  Also as
mentioned in my previous article the 37mm was incapable of defeating the
Matilda, and would have had even less chance against the more heavily armoured
Russian tanks.
regs

Rob
From: drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com (david.r.wells)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: TOP 5 ARMED FORCES OF THE WORLD
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:35:44 GMT
Organization: AT&T


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

In article <Bw2JHJ.AGC@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jjian@tsoft.sf-bay.org (City Hunter) writes:
>
>I remember reading in a magazine a few years back that Japan, even though it
>doesn't have a navy, Japanese Maritime Self Defense Forces can be considered
>as one of the world's most capable navies. I don't have the details of Japanese
>fleet (No Jane's handy) but I do know that while Aegis technology is too expensive for most European nations, Japanese do operate some Aegis destroyers similiarto Arleigh Burke class of U.S. And although they don't have any carriers, one
>class of their cruisers are capable of carrying 4-6 Sea Kings. So capabilities
>wise, would they rank, say, as Indian navies?
>
>
An interesting question! I just got done answering some e-mail about my
previous post. This person thought that perhaps the Japanese might out
rank even the Royal Navy! Personally, I think not, since the UK has a good
force of nuclear subs, and Japan does not (granted, they've got some nice
diesel boats), plus the UK has 3 CVLs, Japan has none.

Back to the question at hand. India has two old carriers, Vikrant and Viraat
(ex British CVLs). While they're old and unspectacular, they're better than
nothing for power projection missions. Japan's Haruna and Shirane class
DDHs (I'd hesitate to call them cruisers, they're awfully small for that
name) are admirable little ASW ships (Actually, I like them alot), but they
are not carriers in any way, shape or form. In submarines, I'd give the
Japanese an edge. India has some Kilos, but their other subs are old Russian
designs, which I don't think too highly of. Japanese diesel electric subs
are pretty uniformly good. They also have some out with a very nice new
torpedo recently. Also, it is true that Japan is working on Aegis destroyers
(and yes, they bear an uncanny resemblance to Burkes), but I believe they are
still under construction.

   Bottom line, who is better? I guess it depends what the mission is.
I'll have to get a newer Janes to find out who has been buying what.
The Indians were looking at Kresta IIs, Sovoremnys, and Slavas last time
I looked. Any of those could change the balance.

			David Wells
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: Fri, 9 Oct 1992 21:38:52 GMT


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


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)
Subject: The F-14B (was: the F-18L) 
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:39:37 GMT


From yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)


From yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)

In article <BvxDux.MG7@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene) writes:

>I agree that the F-18E/F is *really* weird but the F-14A+ (now F-14B I'm told)
>is not a workable substitute since the F-14 doesn't have any strike capability
>until F-14D and would require Quickstrike or some such to really do well at the
>job.  Personally, I thenk F-14 Quickstrike or Super Tomcat would be a better
>idea but that is no longer an option since the Long Island lobby lost out to
>the St. Louis lobby ;-)
>-- 
>Tom Schoene
>wwo@cornella.cit.cornell.edu  -or- wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu

Actually, I just found out today through the Navy News Service (wish I'd kept
it) that the F-14B "Bombcat" is a strike variation of the F-14.  It was just
'created' in the Mediterranean from F-14 deployed on two different carriers
(again, I wish I'd kept the article).  The strike-Tomcats were tested over
there and worked quite well.

- Craig

-- 
-----
Craig Huffnagle       			yukyuk@yuck.lanl.gov
"Shaah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt!" - Wayne Campbell
Think of a disclaimer, it applies.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Neil A Kirby <nak@cbvox.att.com>
Subject: Re: : How good is the Mig-29 VS the F16/F18 ?
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 1992 23:28:16 GMT


From Neil A Kirby <nak@cbvox.att.com>

In article <BvnEsG.Iq6@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (LIANG TIAN) writes:
>
>From liats3@cspyr1.cs.adfa.oz.au (LIANG TIAN)
>
>>From ooi@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Jeffrey K Ooi)
>
>>Since the German reunification The formally west german luftwaffe got
>>it's hands on a 24-plane squadron of mig-29s and here is what they said:
>
>>3)It can withstand turning forces of 10-11g (american jets can on average take
>>    only 9g before they lose engines )
>  I think US a/c are limited by the computer flight control software. Even
>if the -29 can take 10-11 Gs, can the piloty take it and still perform
>effectively? 
>

In response to these postings...
A few years ago, a (flight mechanic?) who had been to REFORGER noted in
this forum that the F15 has the following behaviours:

At 8 G the pilot gets a tone warning the pilot that he is pulling enough G
to impair his ability.

At 12 G a different tone warns the pilot that he is pulling more G than
McDonnel Douglas wants him to.

(This differs from the F16 where the flight control software won't let you
pull more G than it thinks wise)

The kicker is that they record the G forces used in flight.  In particular,
if you bump that second tone at 12 G, the plane needs to be looked over for
damage.  An activity which takes it off the active status for a few days,
which means the pilot at REFORGER can easily miss out on some great flying.

One of the aircraft had pulled 18 G and McDonnel Douglas wanted it very,
very badly to look at to see what happened.  The pilot had no problem
bringing the bird home - it was flyable, he was in hot water.

Energy fighting style of combat says that lots of G severely reduces your
energy state.  Unless you have a real good reason, it may not be what you
want to do.

Neil Kirby

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: WH GREENSLADE <92293158@ccw204.bradford.ac.uk>
Subject: Re: Aircraft fighting on both sides in WWII
Keywords: Finland in 1944 changed sides to the allies and Me 109s fought against each other on more than one ocassion as well as the Italians fought Germany. It is also possible in theory that some Hungarian or Rumiains did as well.
Organization: Sun Microsystems
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:39:33 GMT


From WH GREENSLADE <92293158@ccw204.bradford.ac.uk>


From WH GREENSLADE <92293158@ccw204.bradford.ac.uk>

 The Luftwaffe had a formation called KG200 which flew allied aircraft. Anything they could get thier hands on. The formation was thrown into the air offensive over Normandy in 1944. I have other details that I will forward later.

 Yours 
 THe management
 (BILL GREENSLADE)




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Iskandar Taib <ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Note to the moderator
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 15:36:22 GMT


From Iskandar Taib <ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>


From Iskandar Taib <ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>

Hello

Jim D. wrote me a further message and would like comments and mail 
from anyone interested in the subject. Can you add such a note to 
one of the postings?


Thanks much!


Iskandar

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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