HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: "Jan L. Peterson" <jlp@math.byu.edu>
Subject: Re: WHO HAS LAUNCH CONTROL
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:28:14 GMT


From "Jan L. Peterson" <jlp@math.byu.edu>


In <BuKpq9.C9I@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, bville.gts.org!ian.evans@dciem.uucp
(Ian Evans) writes about how someone has told him of what has to
happen for missiles to be launched.  I don't know anything about how
the command authority determines if a launch order can be issued, but
I do know how it is executed.

> Each missle silo has sufficient targetting and launch control to
> initiate launch under these circumstances without any outside
> authorization or communication whatsoever.

Actually, with the Minuteman (and MX) no one is at the missile silo
(LC) at all.  Each squadron of ten missiles is associated with one LCC
(Launch Control Center).  Each missile wing has five squadrons, giving
fifty missiles in the wing.  There are ten men (I've heard that there
are female Minuteman crews, now, but there weren't when I was
involved) responsible for these fifty missiles.

In order for a missile to launch, it must receive two launch votes
from two separate LCCs.  The LCCs have several means of communication
between each other and the LCs, including LF radio, HF radio,
landlines, and others.  Each site has hardened antennae for
communication purposes, including antennae that can be raised by
remote control but are normally underground.  In the event that an LC
can not communicate with any LCC (read, they have all been blown up),
an Airborne Command Post aircraft can fly over the silo and issue a
launch order directly.  As far as I'm aware, the only way a missile
can be made to launch without two launch votes is by the ACP and this
will only work if the LCCs are already gone.

> [...] After a SAC initiated launch sequence, either of
> the operators at each silo can abort launch of the weapons at
> that station.

Any LCC can issue a launch inhibit order (to any missile in the wing)
using the same procedures as they would use for issuing a launch vote.
If a missile receives a launch inhibit after receiving one launch
vote, it will not launch.  There is some time limit after receiving
two launch votes when the launch can be inhibited, but after this
limit has been reached, there is no way to stop them.

> Without an automated launch order, both operators
> acting in agreement can launch against any of series of
> pre-targetted destinations."

With Minuteman I and II, setting the target data and launch profile
requires a trip out to the missile.  The only data the LCC crew can
load into the missile is the weather situation at the target site.
With the Minuteman III (and MX, I suppose), the missile can be
programmed from the LCC.  Still need two launch votes, though (four
key-turn actions).

	-jan-
--
        Jan L. Peterson		Network Systems Manager
EMail:  jlp@math.byu.edu
Mail:   Math Department -- 292 TMCB; BYU; Provo, UT 84602 (USA)
Phone:  +1 801 378 2183		FAX:  +1 801 378 2800

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: 2429oconnorw@vmsf.csd.mu.edu
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Organization: Marquette University - Computer Services
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:29:25 GMT


From 2429oconnorw@vmsf.csd.mu.edu

In article <BuBLDI.FwA@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV) writes:
>Here's a little more pure speculation:
>
>Remote-control tanks.  Remember Atari's old Tank Battle
>arcade game?  Construct a very heavily armored / protected
>command post, and use remote operators to drive / fight
>the tanks.  Reduced mass due to less crew protection systems,
>no interior noise requirements, ability to use toxic fire-
>fighting systems, smaller profile, more fuel space,
>or combinations of above.

Just one problem, how would electromagnetic interference be handled?
The idea is good, just that in today's electronic battlefield, it
would be a nightmare to protect the signals.  Also what would happen
if the command post is destroyed?  Lots'o tanks sitting there to be
picked off.

Bill
From: mjl17@mbuc.bio.cam.ac.uk (Michael Lush)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Birds getting sucked.
Keywords: airports, FOD, noise, gulls
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:11:23 GMT
Organization: U. of Cambridge, England


From mjl17@mbuc.bio.cam.ac.uk (Michael Lush)


>From utidjian%remarque.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (David M.V. Utidjian)

>I seem to remember hearing, some years ago, that there is a problem
>at some airports with birds, especially seagulls getting sucked into
>commercial and military jet air intakes.  I have heard that this is a
>common problem.
>Is there any "common" solution??
>
>-poisoning the birds?
>-shooting the birds?
>-scarecrows?
>-sound cannons?
>-making a sound that the birds find unpleasant?
>-an odor the birds find unpleasant?
>-an odor or sound the birds find attractive away from the airport?
>-a decoy that looks like a predator?
>
>I have heard mention of all of the above techniques...
>What is most successful for coastal airports?
>Are there some that I have missed?

>Any suggestions especially with referrences, however vague, would
>be greatly appreciated.


	I rembember seeing a TV program which had an item on a breed 
of very spikey grass which was unpleasant to sitin so the birds went 
to sit elsewhere,  apparently it works quite well.

	I understand one of the big problems with scarecrows,  sound 
cannons, etc. is the birds eventualy get accostomed to the measure,
and just sit around and ignore it.

	(Nb: The programme was called Tommorows World, its a UK programe
made by the BBC it was broardcast sometime in the last two years).

-- 	
-- 
Michael

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
NPC rights activist           |      Nameless Abominations are people too.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: The German V-2 Rocket
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:05:29 GMT


From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)

In article <BuBLLC.GB3@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes:
> 
> 
> From rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson)
> 
> 
> I have read a lot of articles about the V-2 rocket.  Wow!  I can't believe 
> those Germans could acquire space age technology.  I read articles about the
> mass destruction it did to London.  Why didn't the Germans just concentrate 
> all of their production efforts to building the V-2 and attacking London as
> opposed to even getting involved with a situation like the Battle of Britain.
> 
> 
> 				Rob  
> 
> 

The V-2 came too late in the war (as may of their advance weapons  :-)  ) to
save them.  If memory serves me correctly, the V-2 did not become operational
until after we landed in Normandy.  Within 8 months all sites that could
reach Britain for both the V-1 and V-2 rockets were overrun.  The Germans also
had major supply problems in getting the special parts needed by this time
also.  Remember, once the V-2 started hitting London, Churchill wanted the 
launch sites taken out as quickly as possible and was another reason for the
push of British forces through Belguim and Holland after the breakout from the
Normandy beachhead IMO.

Don Palmrose
"I'd rather not serve on a ship designed to sink...."




========== long legal disclaimer follows, press n to skip ===========

Neither the United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering
Laboratory or any of their employees, makes any warranty, whatsoever,
implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility regarding any
information, disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe
privately owned rights.  No specific reference constitutes or implies
endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States
Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory.  The views and
opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect those of the
United States Government or the Idaho National Engineering Laboratory,
and shall not be used for advertising or product endorsement purposes.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV)
Subject: Re: Airwolf (formerly Re: propeller plane's ...)
Keywords: fiction...
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:01:39 GMT


From fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV)

In article <BuF344.86t@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson) writes:
>
>From pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
>
>In article <BuBLEr.G2G@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU
>(MegaZone23) writes, in part:

>>Now, if someone could explain how it could fire Sidewiders, Sparrows, 
>>Durrandals, *COPPERHEADS*, and some nuclear missile (SRAM?) out of those little
>>tubes? (I think it had Mavericks and Hellfires too...)
>
>	And Harpoon.  Once.  THAT got to me.  Suspension of disbelief is one
>	thing, that is something else....  8)>>
>
>thanks
>dave pierson		

Let's not also forget the "chain guns."  By my best estimate, at the rate
the 6 guns (3/side) fired, Airwolf would have had to have a truck
driving below it (going at Mach 1+, of course...) with an ammo feed
up to the 'chopper, to carry enough ammo to fire the guns for more than
a second or two. . . :-)

- JWL IV



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede)
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Organization: SCTC
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:28:54 GMT


From beede@sctc.com (Mike Beede)

fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV) writes:

>Remote-control tanks.  Remember Atari's old Tank Battle
>arcade game?  Construct a very heavily armored / protected
>command post, and use remote operators to drive / fight
>the tanks.  Reduced mass due to less crew protection systems,
>no interior noise requirements, ability to use toxic fire-
>fighting systems, smaller profile, more fuel space,
>or combinations of above.

How do you control the command links?  Does it go into autonomous mode
if comm is disrupted?  That's more than a little scary . . . .

	Mike
-- 
Mike Beede         Secure Computing
beede@sctc.com     1210 W. County Rd E, Suite 100           
------------------ Arden Hills, MN  55112
                    (612) 482-7420

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Mark Benson 5-4228 <benson@colorado.med.ge.com>
Subject: Re: Expansionist China
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:37:29 GMT


From Mark Benson 5-4228 <benson@colorado.med.ge.com>

spencer@swanee.ee.uwa.oz.au (Greg Spencer) writes:

>We have allready seen that relations between us and the US can be strained
>just because it's election time in the states - would they be willing
>to defened an alied country like Australia whose only real asset is a 
>bunch of realy freindly people, during an election?

One needs to consider US policy aims in the area.  Clearly, the sale of F-16s
to Taiwan is intended to counter Chinese military upgrades in aircraft and
naval forces.  With the CIS no longer representing a major threat to China,
the US interest switches from helping China balance the Soviets to helping
other regional allies balance China.  Hence sales to Singapore, and 
consideration of sales to Malaysia.

Would the US come to the aid of Australia?  I believe we are bound to do so by 
treaty.  Further, Australia's independence probably falls in the area of US
vital interests in the region.  We tend to like Aussies, and have previously
fought alongside them in that region.  No question that no matter who was
president, the US would be willing to go to war to defend Australia.

This question does raise a global concern, however.  With the balance of
power in flux, new regions of the world of the world are taking on new
significance.  In fact, I see the prospect of closer US-Oz secutiry ties if
China and/or Indonesia start getting to big for their britches.  Some fairly
important trade routes pass through the seas in that part of the world.

The prospect a major Pacific war in the next decade or two cannot be dismissed.
In fact, IMHO, it is far more likely than a major European war.  Alliances
will come and go over that time, and it is unclear who will go against who.
China vs. Taiwan?  Indonesia vs. ?.   Or WW III - US vs. Japan, round 2?
Japan vs. Russia (Kyuriles?)...

Food for thought...

Mark Benson	benson@med.ge.com
I'm sure GE disagrees.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Homestead AFB situation
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:07:46 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department


From     Will Martin <wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil>

As a DoD employee, directly affected in many ways by the budget cuts
and the base-reductions and closings, I am infuriated by Bush's announcement
that Homestead AFB, destroyed by Hurricane Andrew, will be re-built.
In an environment where perfectly viable and undamaged DoD installations
are being shut down, it seems to be the height of incompetent decision-
making to decide to pour money into a base already demolished by the
force of nature, especially if the news reports I heard are true, and
this is the *SECOND* time this base was just about wiped out by a 
hurricane! Instead, this destroyed base should be simply cleared,
with the already-damaged buildings razed, and whatever environmental
contamination may be there cleaned up. 

I will admit that I am not familiar with the USAF basing in this region,
and thus I ask sci.military readers who may know more about this area
and the USAF details than I do to contribute their knowledge. Are there
unique and important aspects of Homestead AFB's location that make it 
important for national security reasons to have a USAF base located at
that precise spot? Or could the mission of aircraft based there be 
performed just as well by aircraft based at other locations? Does
Homestead AFB have any intrinsic reason to exist, EXCEPT to provide
employment for the area? The Florida governor, when interviewed on the
news (McNeil-Lehrer, I think) said specifically that the base provided a
large percentage of the area's employment. To me, that is not a reason
to keep it open, but instead a good reason to close it! After all, this
area, repeatedly devastated by nature, is obviously a place where
people have no business living. It should be returned to an uninhabited
nature preserve, and one good way to encourage people to move away is to
eliminate employers in the region, so people would have little reason to
stay and an incentive to go elsewhere.

[mod note -- Here are the USAF bases in Florida from memory --

	Patrick AFB -- HQ of Atlantic Test Range -- adjacent to Cape
Canaveral

	Tyndall AFB

	Eglin AFB

-- Steve]

Regards, Will
wmartin@st-louis-emh2.army.mil OR wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: martin.briscoe@almac.co.uk
Subject: question on aurora
Organization: ALMAC BBS Ltd
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:46:51 GMT


From martin.briscoe@almac.co.uk


>
>Since Aurora is a highly speculative craft, definately there is something
>there but who knows exactly what, what can one ask or post about it?  Since,
>it is a secret project is one free to post whatever one wants or are their
>limits.
>

The Oban Times of 10th September carried a story that some papers 
in Holland were blaming the recent earth termors In Holland on the 
"Aurora spy plane" !

There have been many reports that it has operated out of RAF 
Macrihanish - though I think all these can be traced back to one 
newspaper report.  The same report gets quoted many times and so 
becomes "many reports".

               Martin
---
 ~ 1st 1.01a #405 ~ Martin Briscoe - FORT WILLIAM - Inverness-shire - Scotland
--
ALMAC BBS Ltd. 0324-665371
Dos based USENET access,  call for details!

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)
Subject: FAMAE Piran~a 8x8 D
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:24:31 GMT


From barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America)

  FAMAE (Chile) has started the production of the FAMAE Piran~a 8x8 D
(similar to the U.S. LAV) under license from Mowag. They are using a
Detroit Diesel 6V53T engine and a Allison MT653 automatic
transmission.

  Are those the same engine and transmission used by the original Mowag
design and/or by the U.S. version?

  Aren't they civilian engines, and as suchs, not subject to export
restrictions from the U.S?

  Speaking for himself,

  Juan Carlos

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: !welty@uu2.psi.com (richard welty)
Subject: Re: The Luftwaffe
Organization: New York State Institute for Sebastian Cabot Studies
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:56:50 GMT


From !welty@uu2.psi.com (richard welty)

In article <BuF3B8.8Gy@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:

>In article <BuDF4v.Ftu@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
>dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie) writes:

>> Put jets into combat in 1943, and there is no invasion, Germany can devote
>> much more of its resources into the Eastern front, London is radioactive
>> vapor by 1946, and we're all speaking German by now.

>...  Also, the German efforts
>to gain nuclear technology were not very successfull.  At the end of
>the war, it was found that the Germans were nowhere near producing a
>bomb and that they hadn't been working very hard at it.  Many of the
>scientists that could have helped had either left Germany in the 30's
>or had been imprisoned as Jews.

on top of that (i'll have to dig to find a reference), the leading
remaining german physicist (who was as i recall was Wolfgang Pauli, but
i could be wrong on this one) was secretly unsympathetic with the Nazi
bomb project, and intentionally led it down fruitless paths to insure
that it was not completed before the end of the war.

supposedly he had the germans convinced that they had to drop an entire
working reactor on the target.

cheers,
  richard
-- 
richard welty                            518-393-7228
welty@cabot.balltown.cma.com
  ``if you can read this, mario, you're too close''
    -- bumper sticker seen on a CART safety truck

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV)
Subject: Re: Japanese F-15 upgrade
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:56:33 GMT


From fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV)

In article <BuF2ys.83q@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se> writes:
>
>From Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
>
>The Japanese will modify their F-15:s to carry 6 Sparrows + 6
>Sidewinders. Anyone know how? Putting Sparrows on the wing
>stations instead of tanks should be easy, and there are outer
>wing station, but they are now only for ECM pods aren't they, but
>they could be modified to take Sidewinders, couldn't they?
>
>Or what do you think of the Sea Harrier FRS.2 approach, putting
>missiles on the tanks?

Personally, if I were a fighter pilot I wouldn't be to keen on having an 
expolsive warhead and rocket exhuast quite that close to my fuel
supply, even if the warhead was armed only after ignition and
separation . . . :-)

- JWL IV


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "CINCLANTFLT PAO" <CLFPAO@nctamslant.navy.mil>
Subject: Navy News Service Headlines - 9 Sep 92
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:45:47 GMT


From "CINCLANTFLT PAO" <CLFPAO@nctamslant.navy.mil>

Here are the headlines from the latest issue of the Navy News
Service, the weekly summary of Navy news and information
published by the Navy Internal Relations Activity in Washington.
To receive a complete copy of this issue or to subscribe to
NavNews by e-mail, contact navnews@nctamslant.navy.mil. 

NAVY NEWS SERVICE - 9 SEP 92 - NAVNEWS 041/92
     Navy News Service (NAVNEWS) contains official news and
information and is intended for distribution to all Navy people.
Please help pass the word.  NAVNEWS is available:
     -- by message to the NAVNEWS collective address 
     -- on the CNO Bulletin Board, 1-800-582-2355/6940 or (703) 695-
6198/6388 
     -- by electronic mail from NAVNEWS(at)NCTAMSLANT.NAVY.MIL 
     -- and on the BUPERS ACCESS bulletin board, 1-800-346-
0217/18/27, 1-800-762-8567 or (703) 614-8070/6059/8076, (DSN) 224-
8070.
                               -USN-
TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR NAVNEWS 041/92
   Top News and Policy Stories
NNS40. USS Enterprise Shines as Point of Light
NNS41. Multi-service Operation at Sea Saves Sailor's Life        
NNS42. Sailors Navywide Aid Hurricane Relief Efforts
NNS43. MSC Provides Assistance to Typhoon Omar Victims
NNS44. Southern Watch Commander Addresses Press Onboard LaSalle     
NNS45. American Legion Resolution Supports Naval Aviation           
   Around the Fleet
NNS46. Notable Quotable:  SECNAV O'Keefe
NNS47. Salute to Excellence:  NAS Jax Sailors Make Dream Come True
NNS48. 11,000 Sailors and Marines to Depart for FLEETEX
NNS49. Last Dependents Leave Subic Bay
NNS50. Pacific Fleet Ship Joins UNITAS for First Time           
NNS51. This Week in the Navy:  September 11, 1941
   Personnel Notes
NNS52. Navy Celebrates Hispanic Heritage Month                      
NNS53. New Exchange Mail Order Catalog Available                    
   Short Splices
NNS54. Flag Moves
NNS55. Navy News This Week               
                               -USN-


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: megazone@penny.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: Autofocus and the Stealth
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:27:22 GMT


From megazone@penny.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)

In article <BuDFBH.G5u@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>>From article <BuBLxI.GtA@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, by megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23):
>> Standard Fly-By-Wire really. The F-16 couldn't stay in the air without it's
>> computers, it's dynamically unstable.
>That may be true for the F-16XL, but AFAIK it is not true for the
>standard F-16.  Fly-by-wire does not imply instability.

>From what I've heard/read I thought the F-16 was dynamically unstable in pitch
to give it its high agility. I know the tail surface produces lift instead of
the more conventional downforce. Is the F-16 capable of being controlled by a
human without electronic help? (i.e. give it the old cable and pulley system
and see if you can fly it.)

###############################################################################
# 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#
###############################################################################