HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: Chad Barret Wemyss <chadwemy@wpi.wpi.edu>
Subject: Re: Kilo-class submarines
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:52:18 GMT


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

In article <Bx5D3M.JC5@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Jeffrey Casterline <jlc@u.washington.edu> writes:

>	Can anybody post known characteristics of the Kilo-class
>sub and does anyone know what vintage/characteristics the US
>attack sub might have?
>

The Kilo-class is the last deisel-electric (conventionally) powered submarine 
class developed in the Soviet Union.  Many were built (I don't have my 
references with me, so I dont have any exact data) and they are highly capable
subs.  They are much quieter than earlier generations of conventional subs, and
this alone makes them dangerous.  Conventional submarines can be made much 
quieter than nuclear ones, because while underwater, they run on nearly-silent 
electric motors, and therefore don't have the noisy reactor coolant pumps 
running.  In addition, the class benefited from Soviet electronics advances, 
giving them better sonar and fire-control systems than most conventional subs.

I dont have any exact data on the performance of these subs, but I will try to 
post it sometime over the next few days.

Chad Wemyss
Worcester Polytechnic Institute



Newsgroups: sci.military
From:  Jeffrey A Erickson <nbc2543@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>
Subject: Info on U.S.S. Ohio
Keywords: subs, Ohio
Organization: Defense Logistics Agency Systems Automation Center, Columbus
Date: Sat, 7 Nov 1992 15:52:27 GMT


From  Jeffrey A Erickson <nbc2543@dsacg2.dsac.dla.mil>


Can anyone tell me where, and how to purchase a baseball cap for the 
SSBN 726 - U.S.S. OHIO?
 I have been able to get caps from all the other OHIO Class Trident Subs
but have never been able to find one for OHIO.

Thank you.

  Jeff Erickson
  Defense Information Technology Services Organization
  Columbus, Ohio

  "Around the World and at home, DoD programming at its best"

 Disclaimer: The preceeding comments are mine and not those of this
agency or the U.S. goverment.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: whitman@nssdca.gsfc.nasa.gov (Rusty Whitman)
Subject: Re: Defense Mapping Agency Maps
Organization: NASA - Goddard Space Flight Center
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:35:37 GMT


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

In article <Bx5CsG.Ir3@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, Christopher Paul Diehl <cd2d+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes...
> 
>From Christopher Paul Diehl <cd2d+@andrew.cmu.edu>
> 
> 
>Does anyone know if it is possible to purchase DMA maps?
> 

You can in fact purchase DMA maps in a variety of scales.  As of
Oct 1 however the DMA no longer distributes the maps.  You have
to order them from NOAA (I think).  Anyway, if you call the DMA
they will tell you where to order the maps.  The number to call
is 301-227-2495.  Someplace I have the new address and phone number
of where to order the maps.  If I can dig it up I'll post it.

These are excellent maps.  The ones you probably want are the
Operational Navigational Charts (ONC) which are 1:1,000,000 or
the Jet Navigation Charts (JNC) which are 1:2,000,000.  Some of
these charts cannot be sold outside the U.S.  They are a great
deal at about $3.75 each.  There are also oceanographic maps for
sale.

Rusty Whitman - "just my opinions"

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Discussion Of Shallow Water ASW
Date: 11 Nov 92 17:23:42 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo


From "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>



A lot of points have been thrown around lately about the task of ASW in 
shallow water and it might be better to split it from the topic or Kilo 
class DEs and discuss a few speciffics of the issue.  Also, it might be 
good draw a distinction between shallow water ASW and Coastal ASW.

First, it is my understanding that shallow water does not allways 
deteriorate sonar perfomance.  A lot of this depends on the sea floor and 
the local conditions of the water.  I have seen a few submarine books t 
(along with a few "attemped" computer simulations) make shallow water sonar 
performance to be nill.  While the ability to use long array devices and 
some convergence zones may be lost, I still wouldn't say that sonar 
performance is "severely degraded."  

Some forms of active sonar do very well in shallow water (medium freq. hull 
mount I think).  Again a lot would depend on the geography.  It is probably 
a lot easier to find a submarine in the perisan gulf than off the coast of 
Norway.

In shallow water other ASW devices besides sonar excell.  IR and actual 
visual spotting come to mind.  MAD should still retain most if not all of 
its effectiveness.  Also, I would think surface wakes produced by the 
submerged boat would be much more prominant.

I think one of the major problems in shallow water ASW is the performance 
of ASW torpedoes.    How well would a Mk-46 fare in a shallow water 
situation?  In many shallow water situations depth charges might be more 
effective.

Also, mentioned, was the opinion that Diesel Electric Boats have a great 
edge over Nuclear Boats in shallow or coastal water operations.  While a 
well designed DE boat is harder to find that the average nuclear sub, they 
do have to give themselves away by snorkling sooner or later.  Also, no 
modern DE boat that I know of can cut over 20 knots.  A submerged approach 
to a modern container ship going into or out of port would be awfully difficult.
I can't see tracking an Iranian Kilo as being a major operation in the 
Persian Gulf.

SJRD
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (Thomas Schoene)
Subject: F-111 history (was Re: All this F-14 Strike stuff)
Organization: Cornell University
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:11:43 GMT


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

In article <Bx7CpG.EyG@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>,
bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy) writes: 
> 
> From "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>
> 
> In article <Bx3oKz.2v8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes...
>>Consider that the USAF seems allergic to the 'A' designator. The F-111 is NOT a
>>fighter by any leap of the immagination. It should be A-something. Same with
>>the F-117. The Nighthawk is not a fighter, it is designed for attack. The USAF
>>only had the A-7 because it was a Navy plane first. And the A-10 they want to
>>get rid of. About the ONLY consideration for the USAF's F-111 was ground 
>>attack. The same for the F-117.
> 
> I may be mistaken here, but wasn't the F-111 originally designed to be a 
> fighter/interceptor and tat it failed miserably at that task. I thought its 
> experiences in vietnam converted it to an attack plane.
The Air Force version of the F-111 was originally intended to be a pure attack
aircraft called TFX with long range, supersonic low altitude speed and a large
load to replace the F-105 (also a bomber despite the F-designator).  At about 
the same time the Navy needed to replace its F-4s in the Fleet Air Defense
role.  SecDef McNamara  looked at the two requirements and decided that one
aircraft could fill both missions.  In the end it didn't work out.  The air
Force got pretty much what it wanted but the Navy's F-111B was too large to
easily fit on carriers, too heavy to fly from them and not sufficiently
maneuverable for the air defense mission.  They scrapped it and built the F-14
using their experience to build a much better aircraft suited for the Fleet Air
Defense role.
    When F-111's were first sent to 'Nam they went as atteck aircraft (and did
pretty well once they got mechanical problems fixed).
> 
> As to the F-117 I really can't guess what its original intent was (since 
> I'm sure its still classified).
It's pretty clear that it was designed as an attack a/c.  Back when it was
still black Jane's referred to it as the RS-19(for recon/strike) instead of the
more common F-19.  As for the designation the desire to confuse peole who came
across references to the F-117 was probably the real reason for the use of the 
F-19 designation.
> 
> SJRD
-- 
Tom Schoene
wwo@cornella.cit.cornell.edu  -or- wwo@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Back off man.  I'm a political scientist!

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: skenny@nano.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny)
Subject: Re: Kilo-class submarines
Organization: Memorial University of Newfoundland
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:38:47 GMT


From skenny@nano.engr.mun.ca (Shawn Kenny)

Jeffrey Casterline <jlc@u.washington.edu> writes:


>From Jeffrey Casterline <jlc@u.washington.edu>


>	Heard on the radio news that a FSU Kilo-class sub
>is due to be delivered to Iran in the next week or so, and that
>a US Attack sub will be entering the Gulf in advance of that
>delivery.

>	Can anybody post known characteristics of the Kilo-class
>sub and does anyone know what vintage/characteristics the US
>attack sub might have?

Although I replied to this article earlier... I should have rechecked
some of the data as it is in error. The following info is from "Janes
1992-1993" and "Soviet Submarines: Design, Development and Tactics" by
Jan Breemer.

DISPLACEMENT: 2325 surface; 3076 submerged (tons)

DIMENSIONS:   74.3m x 10m x 6.6m (244' x 33' x 22')

PROPULSION:   2 Diesels @2.58 MW (3500 hp); 2 generators; 1 shaft

SPEED/RANGE:  10 kts surface; 17 kts submerged
              10800 km @ 7 kts (6000 mi) surface
                720 km @ 3 kts ( 400 mi) surface
              Endurance approx. 70 days

WEAPONS:      6 x 533mm (21") tubes
              18 Type 53 dual purpose active/passive homing up to 20 km
              warhead 400 kg (182 lbs).
              Possible SA-N-8 IR homing, range 600 m to 6000 m with the
              SAM launcher fitted on fin.
              (Mines in lieu of torpedoes).

SYSTEMS:      ESM (Squid Head or Brick Pulp)
              Surface search radar (Snoop Tray, I band)
              Sonar: Shark Teeth, hull mounted active/passive (MF)
                     Mouse Roar, hull mounted active (HF)

STRUCTURE:    Similiar to the Dutch "Moray" class and UK Type 2400 class
              except for a series of free-flood holes which indicates
              double-hull. Diving limit approx 300 m (1000').  The
              "Kilo" is better than "Foxtrot/Tango" but still fairly
              basic by Western designs.

The Kilo program replaced the Foxtrot export stream and has been sold to
the following countries: Poland (1); Romania (1); India (8); Algeria
(2) and more recently Iran (1). Jane's expects further sales to Syria
and other countries to replace the Romeo/Foxtrots.

Sorry for the repeat of info (I usually do this the first time rather
than post erroneous info and then having to post a corrected version).

Shawn.
--
"There is the smell of an election in the air. Some of you believe it is
the smell of tar and asphalt... I assure you, however, that it is indeed
the smell of an election." -   John Savage, Leader of the N.S. Liberals.
                           skenny@pico.engr.mun.ca St. John's, NF Canada

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: SEAN R MCINTOSH <srmcinto@eos.ncsu.edu>
Subject: Basic Training
Organization: North Carolina State University, Project Eos
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:29:17 GMT


From SEAN R MCINTOSH <srmcinto@eos.ncsu.edu>


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
on how to get into shape before reporting to Basic.  A friend recommended that I 
begin doing pushups, situps, and plently of ruck marches.  While I do not doubt 
that this information is true I do not know how many or how far.  How fast should
the ruck march be, with how much weight, and how far?  I would appreciate any 
workout suggestions.

Thanks in advance,

Sean


PS:  Should the workout be done while wearing heavy combat boots?

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ac579@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (G.C.J. Timm)
Subject: Re: 106mm Recoiless Rifle - Rocket or Gun?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio (USA)
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:39:35 GMT


From ac579@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (G.C.J. Timm)


The 106mm Recoiless Rifle is a short range anti-tank/anti-
fortification system.  It is very limited in accurate range.
The most common rounds are HEP-T and HEAT.
High Explosive Plastic - Tracer
High Explosive Anti-Tank

This is a very old weapons system and amoung other improvements
is a version of the HEAT round with a rocket sustainer motor in
the base to increase range.

So while the conventional round is strictly a recoiless system,
there is a rocket boosted projectile available.

Jeff
Who was a 45B30 once in his youth,  (US Army Small Arms Section
Chief / Inspector)
Note:  To my knowledge the US Army never used the boosted shell,
as the 106 was replace with the TOW missile and the system range
increased from 600 meters to 3750 meters.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>
Subject: Typhoon Cab Rank
Organization: Me?  Organized?
Date: Thu, 5 Nov 1992 17:35:19 GMT


From Mike Campbell <mike@aloysius.equinox.gen.nz>

> >Well, the high-loading of the Typhoon wing would suggest the latter, but
> >given the NACA-22 series profile of the Typhoon wing (which caused aileron
> >reversal in dives) the the tendency of the Typhoon tail to fall off during
> >dives (something which makes dogfighting difficult) I'd guess they weren't
> >very good for either, hence the speed with which the Typhoon found itself
> >being used as a ground attack aircraft.

Apparently not so - the Typhoon could out-manouvre the FW-190A at low levels
, but was not much cop at medium or high altitude, where most air-air
combat took place.  The problem with diving was only apparent at high
speed, when supersonic shock caused the aft fuselage to flutter.

Once over the channel, most low level work involved shooting up ground
targets, hence the specialisation of the type later in the war.

> Weren't there also Typhoons used as rocket-firing drones soon after
> D-Day? I think this scheme was called "Cab-Rank" or something of the
> sort. When I first saw it mentioned I was surprised they would do
> something like this with an aircraft that hadn't been out too long..
> Perhaps the reson was they didn't do too well as fighters.
>
> Does anyone have details about this? Why fly them as drones in the
> first place? Did they recover them or just crash them into the Ger-
> mans? Was rocket firing considered too dangerous for humans? How did
> they aim the things?
>
I think you're a little off the beaten track here :-).

The "Cab Rank" was so called because it consisted of aircraft flying
around waiting to be "whistled up" to do a job of some sort, so
the reaction time for the grunts on the ground could be kept to a
minimum.

As for being drones - I don't know where you found this idea, but
your confusion is well founded - certainly never happened in
combat.
--
Mike Campbell,
mike@alyosius.equinox.gen.nz
I have long since stopped being surprised when anything I say is
soon shown to be a load of cobblers'!

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Blair Haworth <Blair.Haworth@lambada.oit.unc.edu>
Subject: Re: AGM-130
Organization: University of North Carolina Extended Bulletin Board Service
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 17:39:30 GMT


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

In article <BxICuy.L3r@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil> writes:
>
>Just got a brochure from Rockwell on the AGM-130. Strange looking item -
>a GBU-15 with a rocket motor slung underneath.
>
>I seem to recall a similar Navy system - an LGB with a rocket motor
>in back. Which leads to my question - what are the problems (and
>benefits?) associated with the AGM-130's configuration, with the
>center of thrust so far from the center of mass?

The Navy system is Skipper II, an elegant lashup of a Paveway II
laser-guidance kit, a Mk.83 LDGP bomb (1,000 lb.), and the solid rocket
motor from the Shrike ARM.  It's a straightforward in-line layout.  The
AGM-130's configuration was a matter of necessity; its 2,000-pound class
payloads (Mk.84, CBU-??, I-2000) mean that a conventionally-configured
weapon would be too long.  I get the impression from reports in the open
press that it's a mechanical and aerodynamic nightmare, but there are two
bonuses:  The spent motor can be jettisoned for the glide phase of flight,
thus extending the range, and it's easier to accommodate the aft-facing
antenna for the data link that gives AGM-130 its standoff capability. 

--
   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: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: Supply convoy safety
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:05:35 GMT


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au

>>From Eric Chiang <schiangkw01@cc.curtin.edu.au>
> 
>>Hypothetically speaking, if you have a 4 lane highway which is vital as a 
>>supply route and is heavily wooded on both sides, (tropical forest like 
>>vietnam) and is about 500+ miles long, how would the US Marines and/or the
>>US Army secure it?

Perhaps the best way would be to capture the "hearts and minds" of the locals
and get them to look after that problem for you.  This is how the SAS
contributed heavily in the Malayan and Borneo campaigns.  Once you have the
locals on your side it becomes much easier to control any difficult local
terrain as they wioll know it so much better than the enemy.  If the locals are
the enemy then you may be in strife, and the agent orange solution may be
needed.

regs

Rob
From: bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: All this F-14 Strike stuff (kinda wordy)
Date: 4 Nov 92 17:32:04 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo


From "Sean J. Roc D'Arcy" <bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu>

In article <Bx3oKz.2v8@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, megazone@obsidian.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23) writes...
>Consider that the USAF seems allergic to the 'A' designator. The F-111 is NOT a
>fighter by any leap of the immagination. It should be A-something. Same with
>the F-117. The Nighthawk is not a fighter, it is designed for attack. The USAF
>only had the A-7 because it was a Navy plane first. And the A-10 they want to
>get rid of. About the ONLY consideration for the USAF's F-111 was ground 
>attack. The same for the F-117.

I may be mistaken here, but wasn't the F-111 originally designed to be a 
fighter/interceptor and tat it failed miserably at that task. I thought its 
experiences in vietnam converted it to an attack plane.

As to the F-117 I really can't guess what its original intent was (since 
I'm sure its still classified).

SJRD
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Brian <brian@coombs.anu.edu.au>
Subject: Re: WW2 Shaped Charges
Organization: Australian National University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:12:10 GMT


From Brian <brian@coombs.anu.edu.au>

Patrick Jonke <jonke@BRL.MIL> writes:


>From Patrick Jonke <jonke@BRL.MIL>


>Yes, they tried steel, sintered iron, copper, aluminum, and zinc liner
>materials, as well as conical, hemispherical, ellipsoidal liners, et al,
>(would you believe a kaiser helmet-shaped liner?). As one correspondant
>to me noted, the panzerfaust had a hemispherical liner.


	They also manufactured hollow charge rounds with glass liners.  The
reason why they were making them different shapes was because they were very
much still experimenting and weren't sure as to the correct shape.  In
addition they were also trying to find the shape which gave best results
and was the easiest to manufacture.


--
Brian Ross_____Brian@Coombs.anu.edu.au________________________________________
	"Three discoveries are essential to the contented and civilised life -
sex, wine, and bookshops, by no means necessarily in that order."
_________________________________Tony Baker, Adelaide Review, October 1992____

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)
Subject: Re: Kilo-class submarines
Organization: Naval Postgraduate School,Monterey CA
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 19:32:40 GMT


From rovero@attu.oc.nps.navy.mil (Josh Rovero)


In article <BxEvzC.1Hx@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ppl@athena.mit.edu (Paul Podvig) writes:
>
>It is usually MORE difficult to find a submarine in shallow water. And
>it is almost impossible to find a diesel submarine with passive sonar.
>You have to wait till the sub will sink somebody and then quickly deploy
>a lot of sonobouys around. Diesel submarunes are more dangerous than they
>seem.
>

It *can* be very difficult to do acoustic ASW in shallow water, but there
are a variety of non-acoustic methods that work well in extremely 
shallow water.

When I was a SH-3H aircrewman many years ago we routinely spotted subs
in shallow water off of Jacksonville, Florida.  Clear water and sandy
bottoms help.  Much of the PG is very shallow.  You can also use
radar, esm, infrared, low light level TV, MAD, plus acoustics.

Water that is too shallow, ie just deep enough to submerge in, can
make life difficult for  the submarine too.


-- 
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: Emin Gun Sirer <egs@volkl.princeton.edu>
Subject: Re: Montreux Treaty
Keywords: Dardanelles,warships
Organization: Princeton University, Dept. of Computer Science
Date: Sun, 8 Nov 1992 19:08:18 GMT


From Emin Gun Sirer <egs@volkl.princeton.edu>

<2120158@hydra.maths.unsw.edu.au> writes:

 Montreaux Treaty on Dardanelles:
>                 4) Any foreign warship displacing more than 10000 tons or
>armed with weapons larger than 8 inch calibre cannot transit the straits
>unless the ships are doing courtesy calls to Turkish ports.

>  So I was wondering if any one knew how the Russians (or anyone else for that
>matter) is going to get the uncompleted 2nd carrier (in what is now Ukraine)
>through Turkish waters without cancelling the treaty?

	I heard that they will not put place the engine (or it might be guns)
in until the ship is outside the Black Sea. Thus, the ship will be classified
as a "floatation unit" when being towed through the straits (A "floatation
device" is some huge submersible hull that lets ships get inside and then
is capable of pumping out the water and floating the ship, thus allowing
repairs to be made to the smaller ship).

	There was much commotion when the first one came through the
straits, but I don't remember how they fit it into the treaty. I am sure
that it was towed, however. Hope this helps.

Gun.

Newsgroups: sci.military