HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>
Subject: AF News Svc 10/01/92
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:35:58 GMT


From CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>

784.  Continuing resolution
				   &    &    &
784.  Continuing resolution
     WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- Despite the fact that Congress has yet to produce an
approved fiscal 1993 budget, servicemen and women are being paid in the new
fiscal year, Air Force officials said.
     So far, neither the fiscal 1993 Department of Defense Appropriations Act
nor the fiscal 1993 Authorization Act has been approved.
     In the meantime, the Department of Defense is operating under a
continuing resolution authority, signed by the president late Sept. 30,
providing budget authority or money at the same rate as last year for specific
on-going activities or non-expiring programs such as pay.
     Because no new authorization act was approved, however, the following pay
programs expired Sept. 30:
     -- Aviator continuation pay.
     -- Accession bonus for registered nurses.
     -- Nurse-candidate accession programs.
     -- Special pay for nurse anesthetists.
     -- Active-duty and Reserve enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses.
     The authority for other Reserve programs also expired Sept. 30, including
the computing of years of service for transfer to the retired Reserve.
     While no new bonus contracts can be signed until a new authorization act
is implemented, the resolution will cover anniversary payments for the
following contracts signed in fiscal 1992 and earlier:
     -- Aviation retention bonus.
     -- Multi-year special pay.
     -- Medical officer bonus.
     -- Additional special pay.
     -- Incentive special pay for physicians.
     -- Enlistment and re-enlistment bonuses.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:48:33 GMT


From fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu

In article <Bv1IJ6.29I@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young) writes:
> 
> From youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)
> 
> 
>    I read in the papers today that A Swedish surface ship (no details given)
>    dropped depth charges on a submarine contact in their waters for the
>    second time this week.  Can anyone shed some light on this?  Were the
>    charges dropped to shy the intruder away, or did they actually try and sink
>    the sub?  What surface ship was involved?  Speculations on the nationality
>    of the sub?
> 
i didn't get any details about the Swedish ship either (there's a Swede who
posts regularly though, i'm sure he'll know more.)  However, Swedish ships
dropping depth charges is nothing new.  They've been doing that for more than
twenty years.  While the cold war was still on, and Sweden was officially
neutral, they officially had no idea who's subs were out there.  Now that the
cold war is off, and Sweden doesn't have to worry about neutrality as much as
it did, the gloves came off.  The Swedes started yelling straight off at the
Russians, since they know the subs are Russian (or Soviet in days gone by.)
 
I think the idea of the depth charges is to force a submarine to surface and
surrender, thus providing both proof of it's nationality, and a very
embarrassing situation to the owner of the sub.  Driving it away would be the
next best option.  Sinking it might be bad, since you never know if it's a
nuke, and what you might damage with the depth charges.  I'm sure the Swedes
are very careful with their depth charges (reactor pieces all over a shallow
ocean isn't good).

James Zuelow
FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu

>    Thanks,
> 
>    Scott Young
>    youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca
> 
> 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
Subject: Re: Piston engine experiments (Re: In-flight refueling in WWII)
Summary: Two American examples
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories -  Naperville, Illinois
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:55:42 GMT


From Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>

In article <BvFzu4.15B@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, kaiser@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Chris Kaiser) writes:
> 
> From kaiser@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Chris Kaiser)
> 
> In article <BvE5ry.2tr@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
> > Was there ever an experimental Allied fighter that used an H engine? 
> > Its basically two flat engines with separate crankshafts tied by gearing
> > at the front so you have four vertical banks of cylinders.
> 
> I think that the Napier-Sabre engine used in the Hawker Typhoon (and Tempest?)
> was an H engine. They had lots of problems with it initially catching fire, but
> rushed it into service anyway as the Typhoon was one of the few aircraft fast
> enough to catch the V-1 at the time. Presumably these aircraft were at one time
> experimental:-)
> 
> If you are trying to indentify a specific type that never made it into production,
> perhaps you are thinking of the Martin-Baker prototypes. The MB 5 was designed
> late in the war so it might have used an H engine. On a side note, the MB 5 was
> considered by some people to be the finest piston engined fighter ever built, but
> the end of the war effectively killed its development.
> 

H-engines?  I searched through my references and came up with two 
examples of American engines that had H-configurations, namely, two 
banks of cylinders each driving a separate crankshaft, the crankshafts 
being coupled together by gearing arrangments.  

In the US military, such engines were identified by the prefix "H", as 
opposed to "V" for Vee, "R" for radial, and "X" for X-configuration.  
The first example that I encountered is the infamous Curtiss H-1640 
Chieftain 12-cylinder air-cooled engine of the late 1920s.  It powered 
the experimental Curtiss XP-11 and Thomas-Morse XP-13 Viper fighters.  
Unfortunately, the Chieftain engine suffered from insoluble cooling 
problems, and the engine was cancelled.  The cancellation of the 
engine resulted in the failure of those fighter projects which were to 
be powered by this engine.  

The other example I can recall is the Lycoming H-2470 engine which 
powered the experimental Vultee XP-54 pusher fighter of 1943.  This 
engine had 24 cylinders and was liquid cooled.  This engine failed to 
perform as anticipated, and the project was abandoned.  

Sources: 

  Curtiss Aircraft: 1907-1947, Peter M.  Bowers, Naval Institute Press, 
  1987.  

  General Dynamics Aircraft and their Predecessors, John Wegg, Naval 
  Institute Press, 1990 

Joe Baugher       AT&T Bell Laboratories    2000 North Naperville Road 
		  Naperville, Illinois 60566-7033.   (708) 713-4548


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ewartd@emu.insted.unimelb.edu.au
Subject: Re: Expansionist China and Australia
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:39:46 GMT


From ewartd@emu.insted.unimelb.edu.au

In article <Bv3CHp.MH9@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, clintons@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Clinton Stewart) writes:
> 
> From clintons@tplrd.tpl.oz.au (Clinton Stewart)
> 
> 
> Some points on the possibility of China (or anyone else) invading Australia.
> 
> Australia has been invaded amphibiously only once (18th century, by the British).

If we want to talk much further back, the present aboriginals are thought to
have "invaded" and displaced an earlier group.

As to amphibious invasion, several Japanese groups landed and scouted during
WWII.  One might consider the regular arrival of "fishing boats" from
Indonesia as a form of "invasion"

Cheers

Don
From: fiddler@concertina.Eng.Sun.COM (steve hix)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Anti-Patriot media is at it again
Keywords: Patriot, effectiveness, media
Date: 1 Oct 92 12:19:03 GMT
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.


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

>From schuck@sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck)
>
>My final impression of the show was that the Patriot worked enough not
>to be called a failure, but didn't live up to claims aired during the 
>Gulf War.

The point should be made that *most* weapons systems have not lived up
to their wartime claims.  The Patriot is no different in this respect.

Look back to historical records of claims made for the RAF during the
Battle of Britain, or for Hannibal's elephants for that matter.

Not that such claims are deliberately misleading, it's hard to come
up with good numbers in the fog of battle, even given the very best
of intentions.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Of making many books there is no end...  |  What's wrong with chasing 
                       -- Eccl. 12:12    |  nebulae till 3 am?  |-(
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Tom Oates)
Subject: Re: What happened at Sidi Barani?
Organization: Bristol Polytechnic, England
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:29:47 GMT


From th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk (Tom Oates)

Several people have emailed me to ask what happened at Sidi Barani.

I have only sketchy details, but here are some of the facts:-

In 1943 an allied ship carrying mustard gas in artillery shells and
aerial bombs was badly damaged either by accident or by enemy action.
The ship was in Sidi Barani harbour at the time. There was a huge
and catastrophic escape of mustard gas which killed a few dozen and blistered 
hundreds of allied servicemen. I believe US and British soldiers were
injured. The allies contacted the Germans (don't know how) to state that
the release of gas was purely accidental, and not intentional. A 
blanket of secrecy was laid over the entire Sidi Barani incident (like
most military disasters) and remained there until comparatively recently.

Another problem that's brewing even as Usenetters read this post is 
concerned with the stocks of German chemical weapons (mustard, phosgene
and nerve agents) that were dumped in the Baltic sea during the allied
clean-up after the war (circa 1945-47). Thousands of tons of CW munitions 
were loaded into old/damaged ships and scuttled in the Baltic. The same thing
happened off the coast of Ireland (don't know how far offshore). The idea
was "out of sight, out of mind." This worked until recently, when sea water 
corroded the munitions enough to cause them to leak. One day (perhaps 
in 15 to 20 years) there's going to be a big scandal about this and a massive
clean-up operation will be necessary. Some newshound will "discover" the 
"secret" and garble the facts to the public. Then all Usenetters can put
their hands on their hearts and say "But we knew about that *years* ago!".
Still, it won't help the people in countries with Baltic shores, or their
fish stocks/tourism, either, come to think of it.

The problem with chemical weapons is that while they are quite hard to 
manufacture (I mean sophisticated ones like nerve gases not phosgene), 
they are appallingly difficult to dispose of safely. They have to be
incinerated at very high temperatures in special furnaces. It's slow,
expensive and dangerous work. Small wonder that the USA's CW incineration 
centre at Johnson Atoll in the Pacific Ocean is miles away from anywhere. 

Piece of trivia: the most powerful poison gas in the world is called
VX and has a chemical formula as long as your arm. It is a 'persistent'
nerve agent. VX was invented by the United Kingdom in 1952, the same year 
the UK detonated its first atomic bomb at the Monte Bello islands. Both
the USA and the ex-USSR hold stocks of VX, though these are currently being
being reduced.

-- 
**************************************************************************** 
* Tom Oates (Bristol Poly, England)  * DISCLAIMER:I speak only for myself. * 
* JANET: th2_oate@csd.brispoly.ac.uk * PGP 2.0 Key available upon request. *
****************************************************************************

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: mwilson@ncratl.atlantaga.ncr.com (Mark Wilson)
Subject: Re: Anti-Patriot media is at it again
Keywords: Patriot, effectiveness, media
Organization: NCR Engineering and Manufacturing Atlanta -- Atlanta, GA
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:40:12 GMT


From mwilson@ncratl.atlantaga.ncr.com (Mark Wilson)


In <BvE5Bx.25M@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> schuck@sfu.ca (Bruce Jonathan Schuck) writes:


>My final impression of the show was that the Patriot worked enough not
>to be called a failure, but didn't live up to claims aired during the 
>Gulf War.

I saw a show on The Discovery Channel a few months back about the Patriot.
In that show they stated that the final software for the Patriot system
wasn't even available until after the Patriots had arrived in Saudi Arabia.
Does anyone know any more about this?

-- 
Mark
My opinions are mine, all mine.  Unless someone else claims them first.
Mark.Wilson@AtlantaGA.NCR.com

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: gawne@stsci.edu
Subject: Re: Nuclear Powered Satellites (was: Sweden Attacks Sub?)
Organization: Space Telescope Science Institute
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:44:30 GMT


From gawne@stsci.edu

In article <BvI71G.M8z@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, 
bphdarcy@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Sean J. Roc D'Arcy) writes:
> 
> I have heard of the nuclear reactor satellites a couple times here.  Could 
> someone provide a few more details on this?  I would think that such 
> satellites would be banned under a nuclear munitions in space treaty of 
> some sort.  Think of the re-entry risks alone.
> 

Ask the Canadians.  They had the joy and pleasure of cleaning up a fall
site in the Yukon where a Soviet nuclear powered satellite landed about
10 years ago.  I understand they communicated with the original owners 
most firmly concerning the environmental damage, but I've no idea what
(if anything) the fun loving comrades from the Kremlin did about it.

My source is half remembered snippets from Sky and Telescope circa 1985.
I'd have to dig it up for an exact date.  Perhaps somebody out in netland
could pinpoint the date of the event a bit more closely?

-Bill Gawne,  Space Telescope Science Institute
 GySgt USMCR

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)
Subject: Re: New addition to McCllean AF base museum.
Organization: Carderock Division, Naval Surface Warfare Center
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:40:33 GMT


From swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil (Steve Williams)


Where is this McCllean [sic] AF base?  And where is this museum located?

Thanks in advance....

---------------------------------------------------------------------
 Steve Williams                           swilliam@oasys.dt.navy.mil
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: nv89-pla@nada.kth.se (Peter Laan)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Sweden attacks sub
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:04:33 GMT
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden


From nv89-pla@nada.kth.se (Peter Laan)



The torpedoe used was an Italian 'White Head'. Could someone post
some info on the torpedoe?



-Peter
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Patriot
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:52:31 GMT


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

In article <BvE5L5.2nJ@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ins894r@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au (Aaron Wigley [Wigs]) writes:
>So, the operators at the time had the choice:
>	Fire off heaps of Patriots targeting each part of the broken
>    up Scud, which is costly (how much is a Patriot missile?). Or,
>	Fire off one Patriot, and the operators targeted the warhead only,
>    which is what was eventually done so I was lead to believe.

The operators had very little to do with it, as I understand the system:
They make a decision to launch, and the computers handle all the details
of targeting. Further, how would the operators (assuming they could
designate one contact as the target) _which_one_ was the warhead? The
only information they have is radar data.

                                                Frank Crary
                                                CU Boulder

Xref: sparky sci.military:9465 soc.history:8644
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Tuesday, 29 September, 1942
Date: 29 Sep 92 12:58:31 GMT
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department


From military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)

Tuesday, 29 September, 1942

The Tokyo Criminal Court sentences Richard Sorge to death for his espionage
on behalf of the Soviet Union.

German aircraft bomb Petworth, England.  A school is hit; 31 children and 2
teachers are killed.

The Soviet attack near Rzhev has recaptured 25 villages.

Over 19,000 American soldiers are now on Guadalcanal.  Seabees work to
expand Henderson Field and repair frequent damage from Japanese attacks.

South African troops are landed at Tulear to help complete the occupation
of Madagascar.

Argentina's Chamber of Deputies votes by a narrow margin to call for a
cessation of relations with Germany, Italy, and Japan.

US Federal Price Administrator Leon Henderson warns that America's standard
of living must drop to the level of 1932 to meet war needs.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker   Moderator, sci.military  military-request@att.att.com
(614) 860-5294      Send submissions to military@att.att.com

"We in responsible positions in Washington predicted months ago that the
living standard would have to give way before the needs of a two-ocean Navy,
expanded aircraft production, increased tank output and all the rest of the
program." - Leon Henderson, US Federal Price Administrator
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Daniel Kuan Li Oi)
Subject: Re: Help on IR difference - PASSIVE vs. ACTIVE
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:44:26 GMT


From doi@tartarus.uwa.edu.au (Daniel Kuan Li Oi)

narlochn@kirk.msoe.edu writes:


>From narlochn@kirk.msoe.edu

>I know this is a slight matter, but what is the real 
>difference between ACTIVE and PASSIVE IR.  
>I know the basics of IR systems, but what are some 
>different specifics that I am missing.  Could someone
>please make it clear?

>Also, what kinds of 40mm grenade rounds were invented
>that were outside the basic ones: HEDP, HE, etc...? 

>-- 
>                                                  _____
>Who else is still waiting for "Naked Gun Part (Pi) | |  "

>''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/
>'/''/'Nathan'Narloch''/''/''/'"Alumn122@whscdp.whs.edu"/''/''/''/'
>/''/'(Enforcer Burp)'/''/''/''or'/'"NARLOCHN@KIRK.MSOE.EDU"'/''/''
>''/''/Milw, WI 53207/''/'"Join'the'Official'Psycho/Team..."/''/''/
>'/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/''/'

	The difference between the two systems is the same as the
difference between a man in daylight and a man holding a torch at night.
In the passive system, the IR system picks up ambient IR radiation from
the scene and converts the signal into a form which can be seen.  The
active version projects its own beam of IR light which then is sensed as
before.

	The main advantage of the latter is that it can be used in low
visibility situations where even no IR is present.  The disadvantage is
that anyone else who has an IR viewer can see the person with the IR
torch as clearly as if it was a normal torchlight.

	The IR systems operate in different frequency ranges as well.
Passive IR systems can operate in the near as well as far IR range while
Active systems are generally restricted to near IR.

	Most systems today, whether it be in a AIM-9 Sidewinder AAM or
thermal imagers on tanks operate as passive systems.  Usuaally, the
active systems are use as personal weapon designators for special
forces.  These would be IR torches coupled with IR goggles.

	I think that other 40mm rounds may include frag and incendiary
rounds though I am less sure on this than the above.

					Daniel Oi
					University of Western Australia


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: driver8@night.Corp.Sun.COM (Albert Handa)
Subject: B-70
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:32:06 GMT


From driver8@night.Corp.Sun.COM (Albert Handa)

Hello out there,

I was in a recent discussion with another co-worker, and I mentioned some things about
the B-70 Bomber that was built (I believe one or two prototypes), and it being a reason 
for the Mig 25.  Then, the co-worker disagreed that the B-70 ever existed, and that no
plane ever had any atomic power capabiltity so far. 

[ mod note -- your friend is partially right and you are partially right --
the B-70 existed (2 were built for flight testing), and one still exists --
right here in Dayton Ohio at the USAF Museum at Wright-Patterson AFB.  It
did not use nuclear power, but had 6 big monster jet engines, and relied on
something called "compression lift" for part of it's performance envelope
-- Mary Shafer -- any comments on how compression lift works? ]

I remember it mainly in my memory, and wonder if anyone can post or send me any
information on it.  I don`t have a bet riding on it or anything, but my co-worker still
thinks I'm putting him on. 

As I remember it:   It was built in the 60's, was nuclear powered (not thrust), was never
                                 built as it was supposed to be built (a very fast high altitude bomber),
                                 and came out as a compromised version.  

I'd appreciate any feedback on this topic.

Al




Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Daniel Shoham <shoham@ll.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Anti-Satellite Weapons 
Organization: MIT Lincoln Laboratory
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:31:47 GMT


From Daniel Shoham <shoham@ll.mit.edu>

In article <BvFzKo.Hv@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> you write:
>
>Both the US and the former Soviet Union had performed actual test of anti-
>satellite system.
>
>The Soviet system was a payload placed in low earth orbit and maneuvered to a
>certain distance from the target satellite.  A charge would then be set off
>sending a pattern of shot at the target destroying it.  If you haven't seen
>the parallel, it basically was a "space shotgun".  If I remember correctly
>the system was tested in the early to mid 1980's.
>
>The US system was different.  It involved a rocket strapped to the bottom of
>a F-15.  The pilot would deliver the weapon to a pre-determined spot and time
>where the enemy satellite was going over.  The missile would be launched and
>directed to the oncoming satellite for a (I believe) direct skin-to-skin
>contact or near enough to set off a proximity fuse sending metal fragments
>into the satellite to destroy it.  Basically, a large AAW missile for low
>earth orbit.  Clancy's second book, _Red Storm Rising_, describes how it would
>be used in greater detail than what I just wrote.

Don is correct. In addition, while not a design objective, the U.S. Space
Shuttle is capable of anti-satellite action. (Heck, it can even steal 'em).

>As far as their current operational status, I don't think either are useable
>due to the recent arm-control treaties.  Its not a good thing to monitor the
>treaties from space if the other side keeps destroying your survelliance
>satellites ;-)   Thus, I think each side agreed to ban their use.  If I am
>mistaken, please let me know the real details.

The US system is in mothball (i.e. it works but is not deployed). The Soviet
system - who knows?

>
>Don Palmrose

Dan Shoham
shoham@ll.mit.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military