HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)
Subject: Re: Stealth power failure
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:50:11 GMT


From shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer)

On 11 Sep 92 14:05:16 GMT, cbarilleaux@miavx1.acs.muohio.edu (Cyberpreppie) said:

C> 	As I recall, the F-16's control surfaces are moved by electrical servo
C> moters.

Nope.  Even though they call it the "Electric Jet", the F-16 uses
hydraulics to move the control surfaces.  There have been a lot of
studies of all-electric aircraft, but it's just not possible to get
the speed and torque required to control an airplane with electrical
motors.

The F-16 uses a hydrazine-powered EPU (emergency power unit) to drive
the hydraulics and generate electricity.

--
Mary Shafer  DoD #0362 KotFR NASA Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, CA
shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov                    Of course I don't speak for NASA
 "There's no kill like a guns kill." LCDR "Hoser" Satrapa, gunnery instructor
                       "A kill is a kill."  Anonymous

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:32:55 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

davsmith@nic.cerf.net (David Smith) writes:

>Why is the top of a tank still the weakest point?  With the advent of
>tank killing helicopters, airplanes, self- forging munitions, and
>Cessna pilots armed with Super-soaker water guns, I'd think that this
>would no longer be the case.

	I am _not_ a tank designer, so I can't claim professional knowledge
here, but there are a couple of thing that come to mind.  First, aircraft
and missiles tend to have problems carrying large payloads and delivering
them in an accurate manner.  Thus, your largest weapon is being trained on
you from line-of-sight, and that means the top armor can be a bit weaker.
Second, top armor raises the center of gravity of the vehicle.  This may
not be a big problem on an M1A1, but on a Bradley it might be a much
greater concern, especially if you intend to cross rivers and the like as
the M113 is designed to do.  Unless you're being hit by shells lobbed in
a ballistic trajectory, or having bombers dropping 500lb bombs on you
with any level of precision, top armor just slows you down.  Speed is more
important than top armor in the case of most vehicles.  Note also that
anything coming at your top armor will usually be doing so at some
sort of angle, helping its effectiveness a bit more.

<Dan Sorenson, DoD #1066 |"There'll be angels on Ariels in leather>
<z1dan@exnet.iastate.edu | and chrome, Ridin' down from heaven    >
<viking@iastate.edu      | just to carry me home." -- R. Thompson >
< ISU thinks I need more education, which they provide for a fee. >
From: rja@batcomfs.Eng.Sun.COM (rja@sun.com)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re:  Re: SAS use tungsten coated 9mm
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:11:10 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


From rja@batcomfs.Eng.Sun.COM (rja@sun.com)

In article <BtwJBB.D92@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil> writes:
>
>From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
>
>
>Robert Allen writes:
>#wound ballistics people such as Dr. Martin Fackler are advising
>#using low velocity, heavy, hollowpoints, such as the 147 grain
>#JHP in 9mm.
>
>And yet the best performance in 9mm is achieved with the 115 gr JHP 
>at 1300+ ft/s, while the 147 gr has been a mediocre performer at best.
>This is of course empirical data derived from actual shootings, rather
>than Facklerite theories, which often fly in the face of what happens
>in the real world.

    I don't know how you rate "best performance".

    Facklers' theories are simple, and are the same ones which
    hunters have been using for years: to be guaranteed a one
    shot stop you have to hit the brain or spine, in the right
    place.  Anything else is second best.  The corollary is that
    you have to get enough penetration to hit those targets, perhaps
    after passing through winter clothing, a wallet, or an intervening
    limb.
--
Robert Allen, rja@sun.com		DISCLAIMER: I said it, not my company.
		    Samuel Addams: Brewer, Patriot.															        "The right to brew beer is the right to be free!" - me
Newsgroups: sci.military
From:     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>
Subject:  Re: Use of WWII Era Small Arms In Yugoslavia
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:24:01 GMT


From     "Edward J. Rudnicki" (FSAC-SID) <erudnick@pica.army.mil>


George Patterson writes:
#I can't speak for all of these designs, but Hogg & Weeks says that the
#MG42 is manufactured in YUgoslavia as the Mitrajez M53.

True enough. And unlike other users of the MG.42 and its derivatives,
Yugoslavia retained the 7.9x57mm chambering (7.92 or 8mm for you
Philistines :) ). There is even an AK-based sniper rifle chambered
for this fine old cartridge. These are probably the last such weapons in
front-line service.



Rob writes:
#The M3 is based on the German MG43, a variant of the MG34.  They are very

Presumably Rob means MG.42, which is what the MG.3 is based on. Caliber
change from 7.9x57mm to 7.62x51mm NATO was straightforward, as the
cartridge base dimensions are the same. And while there is a passing
resemblance, the MG.42 is totally different from the MG.34, the former
using roller-locked delayed blowback while the latter is (I believe - no
books here :) short recoil operated.



Ed Rudnicki     erudnick@pica.army.mil     All disclaimers apply
"It demoralized them. Not to mention killed them."
     --- 3rd AD officer describing effects of DPICM in ODS

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Aircraft Carriers & In-flight refueling - what's so hard?
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 17:00:18 GMT


From fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu

In article <Bu9H04.E51@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
> BTW, the USN had one hell of a hard time , in the '50's, perfecting the
> techniques to utilize jet a/c on a/c carriers. The number of crashes dur-
> ing that time was so high that some people suggested the concept of oper-
> ating high performance jets be abandoned. I can't imagine it being any
> easier for the PRC
> 
> PHIL

i wonder how much a retired Naval Aviation officer or two would be worth to the
PRC on contract?  A modern Chennault teaching the Chinese to fly could be quite
comfortable...

James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)
Subject: Re: In-flight refueling in WWII
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:01:29 GMT


From Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott)

In article <Bu9HIq.G8y@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>
umteghts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (david teghtsoonian) writes:

> Anyone care to share some insight on the origin of in-flight
> refueling (and why it wasn't used during WWII) ?

Once the formations were over the coast of Europe, they were targets
for the Luftwaffe.  The practical problems of carrying enough fuel to
make it available for thirsty fighters have already been dealt with,
but here are some others.  Staying in formation while refueling the
fighters, protecting the refuelees from the Germans.  I doubt that
anyony military strategists gave this a thought.  It would have been
nightmarish even without being in a lethal combat zone.

Corky Scott

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson)
Subject: Re: The German V-2 Rocket
Organization: University of Pittsburgh
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:53:35 GMT


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  

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)
Subject: Re: The German V-2 Rocket
Organization: who knows
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:20:13 GMT


From smpod@ariel.lerc.nasa.gov (Stefan)

mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes...
>>by 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.
> 
>Acquire?  They developed it, based on Goddard's original experiments.

Wrong.  Goddard was working on solid-fueled rocket which resulted in jato
units while the V-2 is liquid-fueled which is the direct ancestor to the
Saturn rockets.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)
Subject: Re: propeller planee's anti-torque problem
Keywords: fiction...
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 14:04:51 GMT


From pierson@empror.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)

In article <BuBLEr.G2G@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, megazone@realsoon.WPI.EDU
(MegaZone23) writes, in part:

>aha! If you recall your Airwolf physics, the rotor was disconnected at high
>speeds, set to a neutral pitch, and allowed to free wheel. The stub wings and
>body provided all the lift while the boosters were in operation.

>Hey, give them a break, it was just a Bell 222 with some extra fibreglas.

>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			|the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Digital Equipment Corporation	|the opinions, my own.
pierson@majsty.enet.dec.com	|I am the NRA.
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Carrier Fighters (was: is the A-10 going bye-bye?)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:46:43 GMT


From fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)

In article <BuDFBs.G6y@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jd@latcs1.lat.oz.au (John Dimogotsis) writes:
>	I heard a few years ago from a reliable source that at some time in the
>	early '90s the USnavy would start production of the " F14-D " and the
>	" A6-F ", have both of these projects 'sunk'? 

Yes. The F-14D was an F-14 with a substantially superior engine, and a
lot of minor changes to take full advantage of the extra thrust, but 
this version isn't going to be produced. Navy is re-fitting its F-14As
with the new engines (I've seen this called the "F-14A+").

I don't remember what the A6-F was, but the production lines are
closed.

	
>       If such planes are in 
>	fact an improvement on the earlier models, then they would still be
>	adequate for the carriers for the next ten years at least, that is 
>	few planes would even compare with them even around the year 2000 odd.

That depends on how vital you consider stealth technology: By 2000, you
could expect third world air forces to have radar-guided missiles on
the level of American 1980s weapons (or better). One of the arguments
for stealth aircraft, is that non-stealthy aircraft can't survive in
that kind of environment.

                                                  Frank Crary
                                                  CU Boulder
From: amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu (Anthony M Lovell)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Birds getting sucked.
Keywords: airports, FOD, noise, gulls
Date: 3 Sep 92 15:07:26 GMT
Organization: Princeton University


From amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu (Anthony M Lovell)

  You often see on commercial planes spirals painted on the cones of the
first compressor fan.  Visible at the intake of the engine, at low revs
the spiral is an easy indicator of motion - while at the same speed the
blades themselves might appear as a solid blur that might be missed by
bird eyeballs.

-- 
amlovell@phoenix.princeton.edu     ...since 1963.
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: anasaz!anasaz.briand@enuucp.eas.asu.edu (Brian Douglass)
Subject: Re: Chinese fighters gain mid-air refuelli
Organization: Anasazi, Inc.  Phoenix, Az
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:44:39 GMT


From anasaz!anasaz.briand@enuucp.eas.asu.edu (Brian Douglass)


I did some checking, and it seems that China having aerial refueling capability
is old news!  

Supposedly, for more than 10 years, China has possessed "buddy refueling", 
that is aircraft of the same type refueling each other.
More recently, in the last 5-10 years they added tanker refueling
capability.  It's just that the US finally acknowledged what it already
knew.

What's happened, in an effort to maintain funding support, various
intelligence agencies are becoming a bit more liberal with their knowledge.
In this way, the "threat" is maintained and therefore existence is
justified.

Expect many more "revelations" as more, formerly classified materiel is
declassified.
-- 
"... For I have sworn upon the alter of god, eternal hostility against
every form of tyranny over the mind of man."  Thomas Jefferson
Brian Douglass		briand@anasazi.com 	602-870-3330 X657


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Charles Dignes <chad@cix.compulink.co.uk>
Subject: Re: jet output cross section
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:31:10 GMT


From Charles Dignes <chad@cix.compulink.co.uk>



> I've noticed that the geometry of a jet's output can be 
> changed.

True. The nozzle is formed of shaped petals with interlock together.
They're hinged at the forward end, and operated by a hydraulic
system. Early engines (Avons fitted to the English Electric
Lightning) used 2 rounded "eyelids" to adjust the nozzle cross
section, which was simple to build but aerodynamically inefficient.
This is now obsolete and most (F4, F5) use an "ejector" nozzle formed
of many hinged petals. The latest development is the "iris" nozzle
(F14), similar to the ejector, but its more complex hinge arrangement
makes for better gas flow. From behind, the ejector appear to be an
adjustable cone, whereas the iris appears to be a parallel sided
cylinder with adjustable diameter.


> I assume that you'd want it wide open on take-off to get the biggest
> push and shut down at high speed to get the fastest thrust speed.
> Is this correct?

Not really. Subsonic aircraft (A6 Intruder or the F7 are good
examples) use a simple fixed convergent nozzle. Supersonic aircraft
could use a similar fixed convergent-divergent nozzle, but this would
be long, heavy, and inefficient at low speeds. The solution is to use
an adjustable nozzle, which can be optimised for a narrow opening
(approximating the subsonic convergent nozzle) or wide (approximating
the convergent-divergent nozzle).

Another reason to have adjustable nozzles is afterburning. This
requires a reduced flow velocity at the flame ring, for good flame
stability, and should also not increase the back pressure for the
rest of the engine. Both problems can be solved by using a nozzle
that expands when afterburning is selected.

In practice, supersonic aircraft are those with afterburners & vice
versa, so the two requirements are complementary. Nozzle diameter is
linked to the use of afterburners. For high speed dashes & shortened
takeoffs, full afterburners and wide-open nozzles will be used. For
loitering & economical low-speed cruising, the nozzles will be
closed.


> Does the pilot have explicit control of this feature?

No. Pilots have quite enough to do as it is. The nozzle is controlled
automatically along with the rest of the fuel system, by the setting
of the pilot's power lever.

          Andy Dingley    dingbat@cix.compulink.co.uk
             (On chad@cix's account for the moment)

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Need FLIR performance model
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:45:58 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

>From Bill Gawne, Space Telescope Science Institute

I'm looking for a computer model for assessing the performance of
thermal imaging systems/FLIR's/night vision sights.

Any NVEOL folks out there who might have one laying around?
I'll take it in C, FORTRAN, or even BASIC.

This is to be used for a milestone 4/PIP study at MCCDC Quantico.
If somebody'd like to discuss this please e-mail me or call
me at (410) 338-4907.

Thanks,

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Top armor (was Re: Self-forged fragment munitions)
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:58:33 GMT


From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <Bu9Hr1.GM1@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> edremy@leland.Stanford.EDU (eric remy) writes:
>
>Personal view: The modern MBT design is a dead end.  Tanks need a radical
>redesign to be effective many years in the future.  Weight needs to be 
>reduced drastically, as does size, all while keeping armor protection and
>the big gun.  One obvious possible solution: put a 2-3 man crew in the hull,
>turret consists only of gun and autoloader w/ minimal armor.  Use advanced
>ceramics and laminates on the wedge shaped hull: the front of the wedge
>would act as both frontal and top armor.  The TC would have to get some
>serious optics so he could see the battlefield effectively: GPS recievers
>and computerized maps could help command and control.  (The TC's going to
>miss his high, panoramic view of the battlefield...) I could go on for hours, 
>but I'll stop here...

I think the key question is, what's armor for? Is it just for crew 
protection, or for keeping a vehicle combat effective under enemy 
attack? I believe the latter is the purpose of armor. If you trade
armor for the vehicle's offensive and mobility systems, you're left
with a bunker. So any design that gives away offensive power or
mobility for crew protection is probably wrong.

Tactically, armor does not operate alone. Some of the task of protecting
it's offensive and mobile power is left to other forces. Infantry guards 
from dismounted attacks against road wheels, air intakes, and the like by
opposing infantry. Air cover defends against attacks from the air.
Mobility often allows bypassing fixed heavy weapons emplacements. That
leaves armor to deal with attacks from enemy fighting vehicles. In other
words, tanks are designed primarily to fight tanks. Current MBTs do that
very well.

In the new threat environment of the air-land battle, the dynamics of
armor's place in battle is changing. Increasingly, opposing fighting
vehicles are going to be engaged from the air. And smart weapons 
available to artillery and infantry forces are presenting greater threats.
Land leviathans are likely to go the way of the dreadnaught and the
dinosaur. The balance is likely to swing more and more toward speed
and striking power, and further and further away from mobile pillboxes.
Current MBTs are probably the last of the breed as smart missiles
replace guns and air mobility replaces tracked vehicles. Future armor
is likely to trace it's heritage more to the Hind than to the Abrams.

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)
Subject: Re: Question on Aurora
Organization: WPI USAF -- United Society of Animation Fans
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 1992 13:35:44 GMT


From megazone@wpi.WPI.EDU (MegaZone23)

In article <Bu2BAK.10C@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> claris!qm!James_Zuchelli@decwrl.dec.com (James Zuchelli) writes:
>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.

Anyone can say anything they want. Unless bond by their job. (ie, a project
engineer undoubtedly has a secrecy clause in their contract.) But unless you
have signed off on your right to free speech you can say anything you want.

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

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gelwasser@scivax.stsci.edu
Subject: Soviet T-34/85 Export Upgrade Kit ?
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:46:59 GMT


From gelwasser@scivax.stsci.edu


I have read that as late as 1980 the Soviets were pulling T34/85 's
out of storage and upgrading them using a standard kit of some sort
before shipping them to some of their less technicaly experienced
clients in the developing world. Angola and several other African
countries come to mind.
Does anyone know which countries might have recieved a "super T-34"
and what the upgrade kit consists of ?

Thanks,
Perry
  


























Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: In-flight refueling in WWII
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:49:00 GMT


From ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)

In article <Bu9HIq.G8y@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> umteghts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (david teghtsoonian) writes:
>
>   During the early days of the strategic bombing campaign against Germany
>during WWII, the USAF did not have fighter aircraft with sufficient range
>to escort the B17s and B24s on deep penetration missions. Did the concept
>of in-flight refueling ever occur to anyone back then? It wouldn't have
>been too difficult to stick some bomb bay tanks into a '17 or Lib and let
>the P-38s and Thunderbolts take a drink now and then. I think someone must
>have thought of the concept as far back as the 1920s or 30s and yet, at least
>in the USAF, the earliest experiments to my knowledge took place in the
>1950s. Anyone care to share some insight on the origin of in-flight
>refueling (and why it wasn't used during WWII) ?

That spinning thing on the front made it hard to nuzzle up to a drogue.
In flight refueling experiments were conducted as early as the 1920s,
maybe earlier. Planes would fly one above the other and cans of fuel
would be lowered on a rope. The prop made this maneuver dangerous to
all concerned. In flight refueling only became really practical with
the advent of jet aircraft.

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Subject: Re: The German V-2 Rocket
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:23:20 GMT


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

>From swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)
>
>The V-2 was a lot more accurate than a long-range artillery gun though;
>if an artillery gun could have a range comparable to that of the V-2, 
>the gun would miss badly to variations in wind velocity & direction,
>air pressure, temperature, etc.  The V-2's guidance system continuously 
>corrected its flight trajectory whereas the gun's projectile couldn't.

Well, it could be steered during the boost phase.  I believe that it was
ballistic from the time the engine burned out.

Steering was done with graphite vanes living in the rocket's exhaust.

If I'm wrong, *someone* will let us all know.  :}

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military