HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ganglia.megatek!rstewart@uunet.UU.NET (Rich Stewart)
Subject: Re:  Homestead AFB situation
Organization: Megatek Corporation, San Diego, California
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:25:03 GMT


From ganglia.megatek!rstewart@uunet.UU.NET (Rich Stewart)

In article <Bu9HC0.FMJ@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> barroux@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux - CS Eng. - Latin America) writes:
>>
>  Well, as far as I know, having only 3 air bases in Florida does not
>allow for much flexibility in planning any military operation against
>Cuba.
>
>  If this administration wants to maintain the presure against Cuba they
>have to rebuilt that base. Even if they never actually use it military
>against Cuba, it is a very good way of sending a message to Cuba that
>the U.S. care about them.
>
>  Remember that if the Cubans decide to mount an attack against Florida,
>they can be there really quickly and do a lot of damage to some very
>important areas (NASA Cape Canaveral, for example)
>
>  Juan Carlos
> 
>

So a US base in Cuba all these years isn't enough pressure? 

Using conventional weapons the US could remove Cuba from the map within 4  
hours of a 1st strike, with every northeastern naval, and air base. 

It's just more election year crap. Just like Guam, a US territory,  doesn't 
have enough electoral for Bush to give them any money for the 150mph
typhoon that flattened it two weeks ago, but Florida...

The rebuilding of the military base in Florida has NO military significants.

-Rich
votes to justify sending 

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: km4ba!alan@kd4nc.ampr.org (Alan Barrow)
Subject: Re: F-16 vs A-10 in CAS role.
Organization: km4ba's packet radio gateway
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:40:57 GMT


From km4ba!alan@kd4nc.ampr.org (Alan Barrow)

In <BuBL7t.Fs9@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> lafford@serum.clpd.Kodak.COM (Rick Lafford) writes:


>To put the record straight, the F-16 has won many NATO and US bombing 
>competitions. The accuracy of the CCIP system is superb. Secondly, the

In the recent "Gunsmoke" competition that was televised.... The A-10's
had been equipped with the same hi tech bomb delivery system as the F-16.

Previously, the A-10's had held their own, but the bomb competitions
were not really a fair match, as the A-10 system was very basic. (As I
understand it)

With similar bomb delivery systems, the A-10's pulled ahead, as they
had parity on the bombs, and smoked the gun runs. (Nothing like
being able to dive straight down at less than your stall speed.)

I think the low men out are the A-6's and A-7's now.

>iron bombs. One particular quote from the pilots was, "You drop a 1000lb
>bomb on a tank and it pretty much stops." 

I suspect that dropping iron bombs on tanks from an F-16 in Iraq
would have resulted in many AA casualities. Not something you can
do from "dunetop" level like the A-10 can.

Watching the HUD video on the "Gunsmoke" competition gives you an idea
what an iron bomb run is like on a F-16 or F-15. As it turns out, the
"F117 Stealth Fighter" game's iron bomb mode looks pretty accurate.
Any real attack drivers out there to compare the game VS the real thing? :-)

Anyway, I would not want to have to do an iron bomb run in the scenario
that the A-10's were doing in Iraq!

See ya!


 Alan Barrow  km4ba | I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack
 jab@               | ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched
 hpuerca.atl.hp.com | C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhauser gate.
 ..!gatech!kd4nc!   | All those moments will be lost in time -
         km4ba!alan | like tears in rain. Time to die.          Roy Batty



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fangs@leland.Stanford.EDU (John Wesley Lewellen IV)
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:52:53 GMT


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

This brought to mind a question . . .

I seem to recall that the main problem with the F-4's "aftermarket" cannon
sprung from the fact that the Air Force specified that the plane was
to have *no* cannon, a kind of "by the way, guys, this is the Jet Age,
and with homing missiles, nobody needs guns anymore" attitude.

In the case of the F-16, however, (again if I'm remembering properly)
there is a cannon, but it was mounted on the upper surface of the 
canard and was intended mainly for air-to-air use.

The two problems seem dissimilar to me, as the F-4 was designed as a 
multi-role from the start, but one which the brass thought would need
(at most) machine gun pods for air-to-ground use;  while the F-16
seems to be having the more formidable problem of being converted
from one type of fighter to another - a change in role, as opposed
to a change in armament.

BTW, a long time ago I heard somethign about a Gyro-Jet gun, using
small rocket slugs instead of bullets.  Whatever happened to this?

- JWL IV


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)
Subject: Re: Breaking in green submariners
Organization: Not officially GeoVision Systems Inc., Ottawa, Ontario
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:33:43 GMT


From pt@geovision.gvc.com (Paul Tomblin)

paulf@eos.ncsu.edu (PAUL DAMON FRANZON) writes:

>recent history, the toilet paper supplied with the Australian 24 hour
>combat ration pack was coloured green.  Said item came in a clear plastic

>(though the toilet paper is white [in US MRE packs].)

Well, I think the Australians are smarter, then.  Every year, people
get shot at by hunters who see the flash of white, and think it's a
white-tailed deer.

>From a military point of view - the guy going off into the woods to take a
crap shouldn't be brandishing something white, which is going to give away
his position at a time when you can be sure he doesn't have his rifle in his
hands.

(If you're shot by a deer hunter, is that friendly fire?)

-- 
Paul Tomblin, pt@geovision.gvc.com or {uunet,revcan}!geovision!pt
(This is not an official opinion of GeoVision Systems Inc.)
"I need that trephination stuff like I need another hole in the head"
    --  Kim L. Greer in alt.folklore.urban

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Neil A Kirby <nak@cbvox.att.com>
Subject: Re: Autofocus and the Stealth
Organization: AT&T
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:30:58 GMT


From Neil A Kirby <nak@cbvox.att.com>

In article <BuDFBH.G5u@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner) writes:
>
>From mst@vexpert.dbai.tuwien.ac.at (Markus Stumptner)
>
>>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.

Here's what I know:  The F16 is unstable in many parts of it's flight
envelope, but it's not ALWAYS unstable.  

Fly by wire does not imply instability, but flyable unstable airplanes
imply fly-by-wire or other stability augmentation.

A implies B.
The presence of B does not imply A.

But in modern aircraft, it's a good bet!

Neil Kirby



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Organization: FOA, Linkoping, Sweden
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:10:25 GMT


From eriks@lin.foa.se (Erik Svensson FOA2)

ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
>From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)

>In article <BuDEyA.FM3@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:


>>Remember that everyone thought that the aircraft would stay fast and
>>only missiles would work and there would be no more furballs.  The
>>F-104 is the living embodiment of this theory.  It doesn't turn worth
>>a damn, even though it does have a gun.

>What about even earlier interceptors like the F-89D which was armed 
>with a large number of rockets which were fired in salvoes? The idea
>was to make beam attacks, not attacks from behind...

The reasons for rockets were to handle the bomber stream. By using rockets (
pioneered by the germans) the fighter didn't have to expose it self to counter
fire and had a chance of downing the target.
Guided missiles are better. :-)
 
--
Erik Svensson			Research Officer
Guided Weapons Division		National Defense Research Establishment (FOA)
Stockholm			Sweden

net.address: 	eriks@fenix.lin.foa.se

"I've got LOT's of common sense. I just choose to ignore it." -- Calvin

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)
Subject: Stealth power failure
Organization: The MITRE Corporation
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:53:05 GMT
Full-Name: News Service


From lewis@aera8700.mitre.org (Keith Lewis)

In article <Bu9H6p.Euz@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, rlwst8+@pitt.edu (Robert L Williamson) writes:
>Speaking about the stealth, I was wondering exactly how the F117 stealth 
>flies.  Yes, I have heard that on board computers adjust the surfaces of the 
>plane, but I don't understand what parts of the surface and what happens 
>if there is an engine mailfunction and the power shuts down?  Sounds kind
>of far fetched, but I am wondering.  Any answers would be appreciated.

The real details are probably classified, so I'll guess.

Modern computers don't consume very much power.  It would be a simple matter
to build in a battery backup to run the thing for 30 minutes after a power
failure.  

The problem you would have is what actually moves the control surfaces.  At
a guess, I'd say it's hydraulics (but it could be electrical).  You can
build a reserve bottle (half hydraulic fluid, half pressurized gas) into a
hydraulic system that will give you a certain amount of motion; if you don't
move anything, you don't use up your reserve.  The problem is that with the
instability of the stealth aircraft, the computer is *constantly* moving
surfaces back and forth.  So the reserve would not last long (2 minutes?).  

In most battle situations, this would mean landing in enemy territory.  As a
strategic move, I'd bag the hydraulic reserve and instruct the pilot to
punch out if the control surfaces failed.  That leaves less of the plane for
the enemy to recover.

Keith Lewis             klewis@mitre.org          "Mr. Cheap"
I don't dance to music; music dances to me.  Email me for my PGP key.
The above may not (yet) represent the opinions of my employer.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Zych)
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:41:54 GMT


From tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Tom Zych)

shafer@rigel.dfrf.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:


>Only the AFTI/F-16 has a canard and it doesn't have a gun.  The F-16
>cannon is, indeed, intended for air-to-air use.  The F-16 is a
>fighter, so it's only supposed to do air-to-air.  I think the F-16
>gun is in the fuselage, offset to one side, but I'm not certain.

The F16s cannon is on the top side of the wing-fuselage fairing on the left
side of the aircraft.

>Does anybody but me remember that the A-10 shot down more aircraft
>than the F-16 in the Gulf?  (One helicopter versus nada.)

I remember.

>My signature seems quite appropriate for this topic, doesn't it?

Sure does.

>--
>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

And a 30mm guns kill will tear your target into chaff...

Tom Zych   tjz20735@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: umteghts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (david teghtsoonian)
Subject: Re: The German V-2 Rocket
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 14:50:57 GMT


From umteghts@ccu.umanitoba.ca (david teghtsoonian)

In <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.

  The V2s didn't exactly cause "mass destruction" to London, at least when
compared to the "mass destruction" caused to Berlin, Hamburg and other
German cities by the Allied bombing offensive. While the V1s and V2s did
kill a number of civilians in and around London, they were grossly
inaccurate compared to bomber aircraft. It would have taken huge numbers
of V-weapons to create the same kind of damage as was done by Allied
bombers in a single 1000 plane raid. (A heavy bomber aircraft can carry 5
or 10 times as much high-explosive as a V1 or V2 and has the distinct
advantage of being reusable.) In any case, the bombing of civilian cities
during WW2 never accomplished anything decisive, like the overthrow of
the government or surrender, so it is unlikely that the Germans could have
built enough of them to significantly alter the war.  If they built V2s
instead of everything else, the launching sites in Holland and the factories
in Germany would have been overrun by ground forces even sooner than they
were. V2s only had a range of a few hundred miles. I don't think anyone
but Hitler figured that the V2s could have any effect on the war. Launching
them was a simple act of terrorism that killed people and accomplished
nothing. Terrorism doesn't work, not now, not then.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
Subject: Re: Voice Powered Phones
Organization: INEL EG&G Idaho
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:27:52 GMT


From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)

In article <BuF3Bp.8JD@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, leads51.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com!mcfar@leadsv (Randy McFarland) writes:
> 
> 
> From Randy McFarland <leads51.ese.lmsc.lockheed.com!mcfar@leadsv>
> 
> 
> Somebody mentioned voice powered phones on ships a while ago.  I
> was wondering how do voice powered phones work?  Are they just tubes 
> and purely mechanical or is enough electricity generated by action of 
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the michrophone to power a communication circuit?
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> 

Your second guess is correct and the Navy calls it Sound Powered Phones.  Here
is the process behind it (I might be off in some small details, corrections
are always appreciated):

The mechanical energy of your voice causes a diaphram to move a magnet through
a coil of wire.  The changing magnetic field produces a current proportional
to the sound intensity.  This current travels through the sound powered phone
circuit to the other phones tied into that circuit.  Then the reverse process
is performed in the headset of the sailor manning the circuit.

Since it is powered by your "voice", there are some things that must be done
when talking on this system.  Clear announciation (sp?) at the proper 
intensity is extremely important.  Talk too softly or too loud and run your 
words together and you will not be understood by the other sailors on the 
circuit.  Also high background noises will make it difficult for the others
to understand you.

Hope this helps.

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: yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)
Subject: Re: What is NTDS?
Keywords: NTDS
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 16:29:25 GMT


From yukyuk@beta.lanl.gov (Craig B. Huffnagle)

In article <BtyIqH.94n@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> jrk@tcs.com (John Koper) writes:
>
>From jrk@tcs.com (John Koper)
>
>Can anyone give me a brief description of NTDS?  I belive
>it's some kind of protocol used in the military and I think
>it stands for "Navy Tactical Data System"?  I tried archie
>but had no luck finding anything.
>
NTDS does stand for Naval Tactical Data System.  In short, it is the 
communications link used by the Navy so that real-time radar information
can be shared between tactical units.  Of course, in some of the older
units, the information isn't truly real-time as the information must
be passed over teletype.

- Craig

-- 
-----
Craig Huffnagle     			yukyuk@yuck.lanl.gov
"Shaah, and monkeys might fly out of my butt!" - Wayne Campbell
Think of a disclaimer, it applies.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: d89-jsp@nada.kth.se (Jan Sparrendahl)
Subject: Re: Depleted Uranium et al
Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:44:53 GMT


From d89-jsp@nada.kth.se (Jan Sparrendahl)

In article <BtGInv.8q@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ppugliese@pimacc.pima.edu writes:
|> Now
|> the 140mm gun will probably be a different story but I wonder how much
|> ammo a tank could carry for a gun so big? The there's also the handling
|> problem. Or will all the loaders look like the Incredible Hulk? ;*)

	There are plans for a Swedish tank with a 150mm gun.
	This would make it more probable to kill the hit enemy tank.
	I presume these guns were intended to be fully automatic.
	The pansarforces of the kingdom have been neglected for a 
	long time by a succession of quite incompetent governments
	and the army feel that the tanks are so old that time nessecary
	for developing this new system is not acceptable. Most people
	believe that a German tank will be purchaised.
	
	Question: Is the energy of a 150mm shell enough to destroy a 
	tank (from  the front) without using more ingenious tricks 
	like DU or shape charge? I believe the energy will be something 
	like 4 or 5 time the energy of a 120 mm shell. Isn't there a
	rule like a convetional shell penetrates 2 times the caliber?

Jan Arthur Sparrendahl
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Re: In-flight refueling in WWII
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 13:28:32 GMT


From ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)

In article <BuF2yH.824@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes:

>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.

On the other hand you could launch fighters and then fuel them to
the point where they could never have taken off and extend their 
range this way. This could have been done over England. 

Didn't they use similar methods during Desert Storm? 









-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Iskandar Taib                          | The only thing worse than Peach ala
Internet: NTAIB@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU |    Frog is Frog ala Peach
Bitnet:   NTAIB@IUBACS                 !

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)
Subject: Re: Question on Aurora
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:25:38 GMT


From dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)

In article <BuBLEy.G3A@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> sjameson@fergie.dnet.ge.com (Stephen M Jameson) writes:

>Since it is so secret that DoD is not even officially acknowledging its
>existence, they can hardly complain if we talk about it.

Law enforcement agencies don't think this way. They gave Robert Heinlein
hell for publishing a Sci-Fi story about the atomic bomb back in 1939
(I think), and his bomb didn't even work like the real one. He had to
prove that everything he said was available in the public literature.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | It is commonly agreed that the inventor of a weapon
                    | used to kill and maim must share in large measure
George Patterson -  | the guilt for its thousands of victims. By the way,
                    | who DID invent the bicycle chain?
                    |                            Kelvin Throop
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 13:23:28 GMT


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

Charles.K.Scott@dartmouth.edu (Charles K. Scott) writes...
>The Germans could have done a lot of things differently in WWII, but
>didn't.  The V-2's weren't available in 1940 and even if they were,
>they were too inaccurate to be used for anything other than terror,
>very much like the Scuds in Desert Storm.  

I think that the V-2s were used in keeping the port of Antwerp closed or
operating at low efficiency for some time.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: jfriday@westmark.Stanford.EDU (The Crazy Archivist)
Subject: Re: Navy News Service Headlines - 2 Sep 92
Organization: Stanford University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 16:58:16 GMT


From jfriday@westmark.Stanford.EDU (The Crazy Archivist)

I was wondering if any of the other services run such an e-mail
message service like this one for the Navy and how you go about
subscribing to it.

Thank you.





Paul "Joe Friday" Stacy (not net.police)       Buffalo State College, New York
STACY54@SNYBUFVA.BITNET (Buffalo State College VAX)                JUST THE
jfriday@westmark.stanford.edu (Stanford, California UNIX)       "VAX", MA'AM!
Disclaimer:  This isn't the opinion of the school, police, Chief of Detective
             Staff Brown, Planet Spaceball, Starfleet Command, or the Pentagon.





Newsgroups: sci.military