HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: trb@cbosgd.att.com
Subject: Re: Submarine related questions
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:52:27 GMT


From trb@cbosgd.att.com

In article <C1F6tJ.KHu@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Cal Demaine <demaine@ee.ualberta.ca> writes:
>
>From Cal Demaine <demaine@ee.ualberta.ca>
>
>Hello.  I've got three submarine-related questions which I'd like answers
>for.  Posting to the group is fine, but you can Email if you wish.
>
>1.  What is the shape of the tail/rudder on the 688 class and Ohio class
>boats?  
>
>2.  What material is used for the sound-deadening coating of modern boats?
>
>3.  There are two large American Subbases with the same name - "Bangor".
>One is on the east coast and one is on the west coast.  Any reason for
>the duplicate name?  What is the history of these bases?
>



Can't help with 1 or 2, but on 3...

There are not two sub bases named Bangor.  What there is is the 
following:

   US Naval Bases Where Subs are usually found and/or homeported:

     * New London, Conn. (actually closer the town of Groton, across
       the river from New London - directly across from the Coast
       Guard Academy).

     * Norfolk, Virginia

     * Charleston, South Carolina

     * Kings Bay, Georgia (Trident East Coast Base)

     * San Diego, California (Ballast Point)

     * Bangor, Washington (Trident West Coast Base)

     * Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

   US Navy Shipyards that work on submarines:

     * Portsmouth NSY, Portsmouth, New Hampshire 

     * Norfolk NSY, Portsmouth, Virginia 

     * Charleston NSY, Charleston, South Carolina

     * Mare Island NSY, Vallejo, California

     * Bremerton NSY, Bremerton, Washington (not too far from 
       Bangor...see above)
	
     * Pearl Harbor NSY, Pearl Harbor, Hawaii

   Note 1: since all of these yards work on submarines, they are all
       nuclear certified, as all US subs are nuclear powered (the only 
       other two NSY are Philly and Long Beach - and they are not 
       nuclear certified, and therefore do not work on subs. These two 
       are also on the DOD's "hit list" for closure).

   Note 2: The Navy used to build submarines (particularly at Mare 
       Island), but they no longer do - not since the late 60s, 
       early 70s).

   Private Shipyards that build U.S. submarines:

     * Electric Boat, Groton Conn. [General Dynamics], just down the 
       river from the sub base (see above).

     * Newport News, Hampton, Virginia [Newport News Shipbuilding and
       Drydock Company], across the bay (north) from Norfolk.


The only other Bangor I know of besides Bangor, Washington is Bangor, 
Maine which I believe is near Bath, Maine which is the home of the
private shipyard Bath Iron Works which is one of the yards where the 
Arleigh Burke class destoryers are being built.


hope this helps

tom balent
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Catching a Tomahawk
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:10:33 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

Won-Soon Lau <engp2065@nusunix1.nus.sg> writes:

>The idea is somewhat similar on that use on the carrier to recover those
>aircraft which cannot lower its tail hook.  Since the aircraft is a much
>bigger mass than a cruise missile I don't see any reasons why this is not
>feasible.

	An aircraft also isn't doing 500 knots with an active warhead
when it's stopped by those nets, either.  Structurally, an aircraft is
likely to withstand greater forces exerted by the net than the missile
will, and at a 50-mile range you need over 300 miles of netting
and have to hope nobody saw you deploy it or dig your ditch, else they'll
just program the Tomahawk to fly over it, or under it, or whatever.

	The water impact is something I can't say for certain, but I'd
make a quick guess that impact with water at 50 knots will likely set
off the warhead.  Water is a brick wall at any decent speed.  Just do
a belly-flop from the 10m diving board to get a feel for this.  Your
system may work, but the smart money is on radar-controlled guns or
anti-missile missiles to take out the Tomahawk rather than capture it.

	Now if they were nuclear-tipped and you were Dictator Don, who
otherwise couldn't get a nuke, this might be a worthwhile scheme.  The
other problems you have when a superpower is launching nuclear weapons
at you does seem to invalidate this point, however.

< 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.                   >
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: Is this true?
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:49:06 GMT


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

"patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com> writes:

>True. I would think, however, that the major effect would be concussion.
>A concussion grenade has a pretty good kill radius, considering it's only
>the equivalent of a couple of ounces of TNT. What's several thousand tons
>going to do? I have this hazy memory from a mid-60s Army manual that the
>blast radius is something like 5 miles? And the thermal wave can set wood
>on fire at 25 miles? Seems to me that anything on deck will be history.
>If it's close enough, so will anybody else on board.

	I did a simulation back in Junior-High School (7-9th grades) at
Kirn Junior High in Council Bluffs, Iowa.  We assummed at 50 mega-ton hit
at Offutt AFB, (AKA SAC HQ), with a distance of roughly 20MN.  As I recall,
the trees might be afire, but anybody in a building would likely be OK
and possibly capable of getting home to smashed windows and burning
embers depending upon construction of the house.  This was in the
early 80's, about the time President Reagan was shot.

	In any event, it would be a severely annoying ordeal and I am
quite glad the threat is lower now than then.

< 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.                   >

	

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)
Subject: Re: Air launched tomahawk?
Organization: Chevron
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:42:24 GMT


From hhtra@usho72.hou281.chevron.com (T.M.Haddock)

In article <C1F6tL.KIn@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, walker-john@yale.edu (John Walker) writes: 
|>> The SLAM is steered by the A-6's Bombadier/Navigator (BN) by means of a small 
|>> CRT and joystick in the cockpit.  He lines the crosshairs up on the intended 
|>> target and the missile flies toward it.  This keeps tha the launch aircraft out
|>> of harms (SAM's) way, and can deliver an extremely accurate 500 lbs of 
|>> destruction.

 Again, as I posted before, this "operator input" is not required but can be
 used to sweeten the shot or enhance overall damage effectiveness.
 
|> 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.

 It is highly directional and of limited duration.  It turns on approx 5 miles
 from the target and, at 500 kts, lasts only about 30 seconds.

 To jam, you'd have to be in the right place at the right time.  Or use
 some kind of broad band "white noise" jam-it-all device.  But then, you'd
 be making yourself a target for electronic suppression countermeasures.
 Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

 And jamming the SLAM's data link will NOT prevent it from hitting the
 target.  SLAM can find its way to the target all by itself, thank you.
 
|> 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...)

 One controlling aircraft can handle multiple SLAMs.  And, if that 
 aircraft just happened to be Stealthy, why loiter 60 miles out?


 TRAVIS

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu
Subject: Re: Air launched tomahawk?
Organization: Penn State University
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:44:52 GMT


From TWZ101@psuvm.psu.edu

     Not to nitpick, but the Air Force's "land attack cruise missile" also
 saw service in DS in '91, when U.S.-based B-52s fired several at air defense
 sites in northern Iraq on the first day of the war.  Just keeping the record
 straight!  :-)

     Also, did anyone think that the use of 45 missiles was a bit excessive-
 sounding for an attack on one (non-functioning) site?  Remember, the first
 day of the much more ambitious and wide-ranging attacks during DS only saw the
 use of 81 T-LAMs.  Was this overkill or just an insurance policy?

                                                T.Z.
                                         "Knowledge, was it worth such torment/
                                          to see the far side of shadow?" G.T.
From: jac1@ra.msstate.edu (Jennifer Cox)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: USS Stenis- Nimitz Class Carrier
Keywords: Aircraft Carrier
Date: 27 Jan 93 16:07:13 GMT
Organization: Mississippi State University


From Jennifer Cox <jac1@ra.msstate.edu>

Jerry Han <jhan@debra.dgbt.doc.ca> writes:


>Question here: Who was Mr. Stenis?  (Considering that US Nimitz Class Carriers
>are named after famous people from US history, the fact that this name
>draws an absolute and total blank is annoying.)


He is Mr. John C. Stennis from Mississippi.  He was a US Senator for
many years and say as chairman on the Senate Armed Services Committee I
do believe.  He retired a few years ago and Trent Lott took over
his seat.

I think he was one of the longest seated members of the Senate.  
He has a political science scholarship here at Mississippi State
and is well known.

If you would like some specific information I can just run across
campus to the archives and get some stuff..
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Scott Olson <sdo@email.sp.paramax.com>
Subject: Re: Apache and AMRAAM
Organization: Paramax -  Eagan, MN
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:37:24 GMT


From Scott Olson <sdo@email.sp.paramax.com>

MegaZone23 <megazone@obsidian.wpi.edu> writes:

> Say, Chaparal(sp?) uses Sidewinders with a booster and AMRAAM is compatible
> with Sidewinder rails... So, would it be possible to change the electronics
> suite on the Chaparal to use AMRAAM SAMs? How about replacing Sea Sparrow
> with Sea AMRAAM? (say, does the AMRAAM have a name yet? I think Dale Brown
> uses Scorpion, but he isn't very reliable. In 'Sky Masters' he refers to
> the CIWS as 20mm and 30mm, plus a bunch of other stuff is screwy....)
> 
	Well, in theory, your could probably hang an AIM-120 on a Chapparal
rail, but the Chapparal system has no sensors to give the AIM-120 launch
data.  It's basically, as I recall, a fair-weather system, unlike Roland
or Rapier.  Besides, the launcher vehicle is too slow to keep up with
the M-1's and M-2's.  The US Army desperately needs some modern short-
range anti-air.

			Scott Olson

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
Subject: French nuclear carriers
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:49:09 GMT


From Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>

In rec.aviation.military l115130@lehtori.cc.tut.fi (Lehtonen Tero) writes:

>How are the French doing with their new carriers, then? I think Rafale M just
>finished its carrier landing/take off testing program so they obviously have  
>a suitable type of airplane, but what about the ships (two of them, wasn't it?)
>themselves? They were supposed to be nuclear powered and bigger than current
>Clemenceau-class, but what will they actually be like - or is the whole program
>already cancelled?

No, it is not cancelled, but I don't think the second ship
has been funded yet, but I think it will, since even at
FF 15 billion it is not the most expensive French defence
project currently.

The Rafale M prototype has completed the first of three
series of catapult and arrest trials in USA, all on land. The
reason they don't do it at home is that Rafale is the first
French aircraft to have nose gear catapult attachment, and
Charles de Gaulle the first carrier to have such equipment.
(Does this mean that Crusaders in US service didn't have nose
gear catapult gear too? Incidently, the first one recently
returned from Dassault after refurbishing.)

She will enter service in 1998, and a sister ship (which I have
forgotten the name of) ten years later. The carriers they will
replace, Clemenceau and Foch, which entered servide in 1961-63,
have a displacement of 32 000 tons. The nuclear carriers will be
slightly larger at 35 000 tons, but in most respects have about
50% greater capacity, and a speed of 27 kt. Personell aboard 
will be 1950 including pilots.

Normal complement will be 35-40 aircraft of 20-24 tons. Typically
20+ Rafale M, 2 Hawkeye and 10-15+ helicopters. The flight deck
will be 260 x 65 m in size, which is enough for 20 aircraft,
which can be launched in the space of 10 min.

The two catapults are 75 m and the same as US ones, only 15 m
shorter. Both the one on the angled deck and the one on bow
intrude on the angled deck, so it's not possible to launch and
recover aircraft at the same time. Rafale M has an extensible
nose gear strut, which pushes the nose up powerfully at the end
of the take off run. The three arresting cables are also variants
of US designs. They'll stop a 23 ton aircraft landing at 130 kt
in 100 m.

With 20 aircraft on the deck, they have to be moved between bow
and stern to make way for operations. Two lifts with a capacity
of 36 tons can each take two aircraft at a time. There is a
separate ammunition lift.

The ship has an interesting stabilizing system, which can be
optimized either to keep the bow or stern stabilized. It predicts
large movements that cannot be compensated for, and can thus
several seconds in advance give the signal to abort landings.
--
 Urban Fredriksson  urf@icl.se  

And to that I can add that there are 2 x 6 SADRAL missile
launchers and 32 vertical SAAM launchers.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com (patterson,george r)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Is this true?
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:23:26 GMT
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ


From "patterson,george r" <patter@dasher.cc.bellcore.com>

In article <C1D8Fv.9tA@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> tscott@morgan.ucs.mun.ca (Tony Scott ) writes:
>
>
>Don't forget that the nuclear blast would have an effect on the
>electronic systems of the Carrier, and indeed on the task force in
>general.  I'm not sure how well insulated a carrier's systems are to the
>effects of an EMP, but I'm sure that it must be considered, as well as
>the immediate effect of fallout, surface contamination, etc, etc

True. I would think, however, that the major effect would be concussion.
A concussion grenade has a pretty good kill radius, considering it's only
the equivalent of a couple of ounces of TNT. What's several thousand tons
going to do? I have this hazy memory from a mid-60s Army manual that the
blast radius is something like 5 miles? And the thermal wave can set wood
on fire at 25 miles? Seems to me that anything on deck will be history.
If it's close enough, so will anybody else on board.

Of course I can't lay my hands on the manual just now, but it's one of
the two the give you in ROTC (one of which is the manual of arms). Surely
somebody's got one?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | Alpha test version - Too buggy to be released.
                    | Beta test version - Still too buggy to be released.
George Patterson -  | Release 1.0 - Alternate pronunciation of beta
                    |   test version.
                    |                            The Dumpty Dictionary
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Carrier info.wanted !
Organization: AT&T
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1993 17:39:02 GMT


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

In article <C1D89v.9FJ@law7.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> aggie@wealthy.ocean.fsu.edu writes:
>
>From aggie@wealthy.ocean.fsu.edu
>
>> 
>> 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]

As far as I know, Midway has been decommissioned.

>
>According to my recollection of one of the posts appearing here, AVT-16
>_Lexington_ has already been decomissioned and scraped. Can anyone 
>confirm or deny that? 
>

I'll deny it. Lexington has been decommissioned, but thankfully, NOT scrapped. 
She is now preserved in Texas.

				David Wells

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: harry@medusa.dseg.ti.com
Subject: Re: British armour
Organization: Texas Instruments, Inc.
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 18:38:14 GMT


From harry@medusa.dseg.ti.com


<follick%hydra.unm.edu@lynx.unm.edu> () writes:
>>The armour on the British "Warrior" APCs is I think Chobham and according
>>ne report I heard can withstand any artillery round up to 155mm. I think
>>the BBC News report said the armour was in plates fixed onto the vehicles
>>which suggests it is not normally used.
>
>     This seems like very effective protection, considering that it
>seems the top of the line US APC, can't handle an RPG 17. How comprehensive
>is this armor? Are there large gaps?
>


The key here is that we are talking about 155mm ARTILLERY rounds.  This will be
indirect fire, high explosives.  There talking about shrapnel and concussion 
protection, not direct fire.  An RPG is a direct fire munition, it is made to
hit and penetrate armor.  These are completely different!  The Bradley compares
well with the Warrior as far as armored protection, it probably has slightly
better mobility, and certainly has superior firepower (The Warrior mounts no
ATGM's).

Harry Campbell
harry@dseg.ti.com
From: jkh@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Sonic Sniper Locater
Date: 25 Jan 93 17:19:53 GMT
Organization: Lotus Development Ireland


From jkh@whisker.lotus.ie (Jordan K. Hubbard)

As far as I know, no current suppressor technology exists that
actually slows supersonic rounds to the subsonic (even trying to do
such a thing strikes me as a highly dangerous proposition), you need
to load special ammunition that is already subsonic.  All the
suppressor does is prevent rapid expansion of gases released at the
muzzle.  It's also true that most automatic weapons release
substantial noise from the opening breach, which is why truly
"silenced" weapons lock the breach for every shot (you need to cycle
the action by hand).

I think trying to develop suppression technology for rifle rounds is
probably pointless for anything in the SMG / LMG range - the only
effective suppressors I've ever seen for such things being massive and
only usable from a tripod mounted weapon (sighting was also a serious
problem).  I can't really imagine such a weapon being used in any
situation that a flash suppressed weapon (to prevent dust dispersion)
couldn't do equally well, assuming that the goal was to snipe at
relatively long range from a concealed location for an extended period
of time (without detection).  The sonic crack is always going to point
you out eventually, however.

					Jordan
--
Jordan Hubbard		Lotus Development Ireland	jkh@whisker.lotus.ie
I DO NOT SPEAK FOR LOTUS - IT HAS PLENTY OF LAWYERS TO DO THAT FOR IT ALREADY
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>
Subject: Re: Sonic Sniper Locater
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 17:47:51 GMT


From Dan Sorenson <viking@iastate.edu>

fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary) writes:

>I suspect many calibers couldn't be silenced effectively. I've never 
>heard of a silencer for an M-16, or anything else firing .223 Rem.
>I _think_ silencers which slow the bullet to subsonic speeds are generally
>for submachineguns and carbines whose bullets are normally only slightly 
>supersonic. Alternately, it might be possible to silence .223 Rem, if
>a reduced powder load was used (of course, this probably wouldn't 
>cycle the action...)

	This was discussed on rec.guns a while back, and a FAQ is in the
works.  Hopefully the moderator will cross-post when it is on-line.  In
any event, the only .223 I've seen with silencers weren't particularly
silent, Sarah Connor in Terminator 2 notwithstanding.

[mod note -- sure, I'll post the rec.guns FAQ whenever I see it

Steve]

	However, one selling point of the HAC-7, made by Holloway
Arms Corporation as a battle rifle (I hate to say 'salt weapon), was
an adjustable gas regulator.  It was chambered in 7.62 NATO, and was
capable of being silenced.  There were five positions on the gas
regulator, the first four being for heavy-to-light ammunition, and the
last being no gas at all.  This last setting was to be used with
subsonic ammunition and silencer, and kept the bolt from opening at
all in order to reduce noise.  Is this even made today?  I read about
it at least five years ago.

	I'd suggest that an M-16 could fire suppressed, but you would
need to adjust the gas regulator to cycle the action, or just cycle
it by hand after each shot.

	Additionally, silencers work like glasspack mufflers on cars.
The silencer absorbs the heat and blast from the muzzle.  It does not
slow the bullet.  Those that might must be an integral part of the
barrel (holes drilled in it?) else your accurracy is killed along with
the sound.  A supersonic bullet and a silencer are, at best, going to
silence the initial report, and is hence somewhat less than ideal.

< 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: gawne@stsci.edu
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Don't Eliminate the AF:  Was: B2s v. carrier task force
Date: 24 Jan 93 16:03:22 GMT
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute


From gawne@stsci.edu

Please don't even think of getting rid of the US Air Force!  

Where would we go to get paid, in minutes, while on leave?
Where else can you find mess halls (OK, dining facilities)
that you can really like?  That you long to come back to some
day?

[Somebody's going to flame this one, but what the heck.]
Where will we go to find good looking round eyed women when
we're deployed far from home?  The fond memories I have of the
club at Kadena AFB ... 

When you're a Marine, the consolation of living in the field is that
all the comforts of western civilization are as close as the nearest
US Air Force Base.  The Army facilities are a poor shadow in comparison.

And hey, if you have time to spare you can even let them get you to wherever
you're going!  (Damned hydraulic leaks...)

Seriously people, the USAF has a good reason for being.  I only get peeved
at them when they try to step into places where others are already doing
a good job.  Let's not waste out time trying to eliminate them.  

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 MSgt USMCR
Newsgroups: sci.military