HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: CMSgt Mike Bergman <bergman@afnews.pa.af.mil>
Subject: AF News Svc 08/24/92
Organization: Hq Air Force News Agency/SCC
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:38:28 GMT


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


676.  DOD health registry
     WASHINGTON (AFNS) -- The Department of Defense will keep a registry of
servicemembers exposed to burning oil fumes during Operation Desert Storm,
Pentagon officials announced.
     Deputy Secretary of Defense Donald J. Atwood tasked the military services
and defense agencies July 13 to start the registry.  The Department of
Veterans Affairs asked DOD to track people to make it easier to help them
later, should exposure-related health problems develop.
     The registry will include a roster of individuals assigned to each unit
in the areas affected by Kuwaiti oil well fires, as well as demographic and
military personnel information.
     The DOD will also keep records of daily unit locations from Jan. 15,
1991, through the date of the last unit withdrawal from the region.
     In addition, DOD will keep information on air pollution levels at sites
where servicemembers were stationed.
     The Army is the executive agency for the registry.  (Courtesy American
Forces Information Service)

-- 
         
      // \\
    //     \\                    Air Force News Agency 
   |         |               Kelly Air Force Base, Texas, USA
   \\  {*}  //                   bergman@afpan.pa.af.mil  
   \  CMSgt  /      ___________________ /____________________________________
   \  Mike   /   
   \ Bergman /
     \     / 



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)
Subject: Re: Depleted Uranium -- Hydrogen Bombs
Organization: University of Central Florida
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:27:02 GMT


From clarke@acme.ucf.edu (Thomas Clarke)

In article <BtJnCy.8sr@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)  
writes:
> No necessary details have been omitted -- unless, of course, you buy off
> on Howard Morland's Progressive Magazine design (x-ray radiation pressure
> and/or exploding styrofoam instead of fast neutron induced implosion) --
> if so, then I have prime farming land in Arizona I'd love to sell you.
 
I did not read Morland's H-bomb account, but I have read 
Clancy's description of H-bomb operation in
Sum of All Fears, which I assume is based on Morland.

To me it sounded authentic.  Especially since I had an aha! reaction
and found the exploding styrofoam/soda straws technically sweet :-)
--
Thomas Clarke
Institute for Simulation and Training, University of Central FL
12424 Research Parkway, Suite 300, Orlando, FL 32826
(407)658-5030, FAX: (407)658-5059, clarke@acme.ucf.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Subject: Re: Chinese fighters gain mid-air refuelling facility
Organization: University Of Kentucky, Dept. of Math Sciences
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:40:14 GMT


From randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)

anthony@cs.uq.oz.au (Anthony Lee) writes:


>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>China Obtains Technology for Aerial Refueling of Jets ............... 54
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>One problem is that China's F-7 fighter cannot be adapted to in-flight
>refueling. And it is uncertain if the longer-range F-8-2 is adaptable.

Anybody know why?  Isn't an F-7 just a Mig21 varient?  Is there
something about this plane that makes it impossible?

-Thanks
-Randy
From: billb@owlnet.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: 20mm ammo for Phalanx (was Tracers)
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:16:16 GMT
Organization: Rice University


From billb@owlnet.rice.edu (William Stenson Blackwell)

In article <BtC4Ks.5IL@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:
|> 
|> Wasn't that the Hague Convention that outlawed expanding pro-
|> jectiles in war? It was before or during the boer war. Expanding 
|> ammo is widely used by police, Hague Convention or no Hague 
|> Convention.

It was just after.  The boers had gotten ahold of a few empty ammo cases from
the Dum-Dum armory in India.  This is the selfsame outfit that came up with
the dum-dum round (i.e. no outer jacket) that the British used in India
for the same reasons that the Americans switched to the .45 ACP (?).  As far
as teflon-coated bullets go, the reason that they are effective is that the
teflon reduces friction wherever the bullet goes, not just inside the gun.

-- 
Bill Blackwell             P H P <==me!   "A just request is to be met
billb@owlnet.rice.edu     F L L F       in silence, by the act."
Houston, Texas, USA          8       -Dante Alighieri "Inferno" XXIV ln.77-78
"My opinions are mine, no one else is that stupid"
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au
Subject: Re: is the A-10 going bye-bye?
Organization: Economics, University of Adelaide
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:36:19 GMT


From ecrjbruce@economics.adelaide.edu.au


 
> In "Wings over the Gulf" (A discovery channel documentary), they indicated 
> the A-10's had the toughest role and took the most casualities due to 
> ground fire. The Iraqi's had current AA technology, and a ZSU type radar 
> guided gun seems to be pretty effective against low flying craft.

Weren't these guns the first to be taken out with the radar seeking guided
bombs?  Over here we got told it was the area fire of "standard" AA that caused
all the problems for the ground strike aircraft.  Thus the extra survivability
of the A-10 is the critical factor, as there is no way to avoid taking damage
from the massed area fire of large numbers of AA guns.
 
regs

Rob


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "CINCLANTFLT PAO" <CLFPAO@nctamslant.navy.mil>
Subject: USS John F. Kennedy Group to Deploy
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 12:08:27 GMT


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

NAVY NEWS SERVICE - 21 AUG 1992 - NAVNEWS 035/92 
NNS 1.  USS John F. Kennedy Group to Deploy 
WASHINGTON (NNS) -- In yet another example of the inherent 
flexibility of naval forces and their ability to respond when 
called upon, nearly 9,000 sailors and Marines of USS John F. 
Kennedy's (CV 67) Battle Group will depart on a Mediterranean 
deployment two weeks early.  The Kennedy Battle Group will replace 
the Saratoga Battle Group, which deployed May 6.  USS Saratoga (CV 
60) and her accompanying ships are expected to return on time to 
their homeports in early November. 
     The units of the Kennedy Battle Group are now scheduled to 
depart their homeports Wednesday, Oct. 7, vice Oct. 21.  The battle 
group, composed of 10 Atlantic Fleet ships, two submarines and a 
variety of aviation squadrons, are departing early to ensure the 
continued presence of a carrier battle group in the Mediterranean 
Sea.  The Kennedy battle group will consist of: 
   Carrier Air Wing Three (CVW 3)       USS Leyte Gulf (CG 55) 
   USS Wainwright (CG 28)               USS Gettysburg (CG 64) 
   USS Caron (DD 970)                   USS Halyburton (FFG 40) 
   USS Capodanno (FF 1093)              USS Kalamazoo (AOR 6) 
   USS McInerney (FFG 8)                USS Puget Sound (AD 38) 
   USS Albuquerque (SSN 706)            USS Seahorse (SSN 669)     
     The Kennedy Battle Group will be commanded by RADM James A. 
Lair, Commander Carrier Group Two. 
                               -USN- 


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)
Subject: Re: Radar Question
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:31:17 GMT


From viking@iastate.edu (Dan Sorenson)

>From Curtis Gibson <curt@quest.uucp>

>I would like to ask a question about a radars ability to distinguish
>between different materials.  Will for example a 1 meter square of
>aluminum foil, a 1 meter square of aluminum aircraft skin, a 1 meter
>square of steel tank armor, (all samples are flat, the same size/shape,
>viewed from the same angle, etc) appear the same to the radar and the
>radar operator?  Thanks.

	Short answer: Yes, they will appear the same.  Longer answer:
No, they won't appear the same.  The profile of each surface will be
the same, but not each material is likely to return the same amount of
energy depending on many factors.  Tank armor is thicker than aircraft
skin, which is thicker than alumninum foil, so you will get some bit of
fluxuation in return energy power (this can be thought of as listening
to the sound of a car with little muffling to the lawnmower without
a muffler.  The sound levels are the same, but the car sends a
bit different type of sound and it doesn't hurt the ears as much).  A
properly trained radar operator must look for these subtle differences
to tell if one airplane is mostly shuelding his radar beam from the
rest of the flight lined up behind him, or if he's looking at some of
the really sophisticated jamming methods.  It can be differentiated,
but not without lots of experience and training.  This all is moot if
your radar station can't discriminate signals well enough to note these
very subtle and minor differences.

	Point to ponder: US radar-guided air-to-air missiles are supposed
to aim for a wing root, thereby making sure lots of vitals are damaaged
and increasing the possibility of a kill.  If the missile can tell from
the return where a wing root is as opposed to the elevators, I'd say we
have some pretty good circuits capable of finding these subtle signals.
I don't know that it is true, but if it is the radar has to be top-notch.

<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. >

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ke4zv!gary@gatech.edu (Gary Coffman)
Subject: Re: Kevlar Body Armour vs. Kevlar Rounds
Organization: Gannett Technologies Group
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:34:09 GMT


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

In article <BtGIuH.Fv@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> boyd@prl.dec.com (Boyd Roberts) writes:
>
>So my (possibly naive) question is how does Kevlar body armour stand up
>to rounds that are either Kevlar or Kevlar tipped.  Well, I guess my
>real question is that if I wanted to punch holes in Kevlar body armour
>what's my best shot?  I guess an M-79 round wouldn't be a bad choice.

Kevlar has high tensile strength, but little hardness. It would make
a lousy bullet. Kevlar vests are *woven* from Kevlar thread. Like any
woven cloth, the easiest way to penetrate it is the same way a needle
penetrates the cloth when it is sewn. That is to go *between* the
threads. For example, an ice pick will reliably penetrate Kevlar
vests. Most hard pointed bullets will too. Thus Kevlar vests are
often proof against big blunt pistol bullets, but worthless against
sharp pointed rifle bullets.

Kevlar has it's greatest strength when laid in radial loops around the
chest. It then uses it's great tensile strength to turn the energy of
the projectile from a penetrating force to a radial compression force
about the whole body. But this layering leaves the wearer vulnerable
to penetration of the vest by sharply pointed projectiles. To avoid
this, you can use multiple layers of Kevlar laid on the bias to each
other. This reduces the area between the fibers, but it doesn't use
the tensile strength of the material to best advantage. Thus it is
more prone to tearing and entering the wound channel in front of the
projectile. So what's usually done is to insert steel plates in pockets
in the kill zones protected by the vest. These plates prevent projectiles
from sneaking through the gaps between the fibers and force them to actually
tear the radially laid kevlar strands in addition to penetrating the 
steel plate itself. With this design, protection can be had from rifle
bullets up to the 7.62 NATO energy level. The vest, now steel armor,
becomes heavy and difficult to manevour in however.

As you can see, there's no magic involved, just basic tire technology.

Gary


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: spencer@panix.com (David Spencer)
Subject: Re: light aircraft in strike role
Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix, NYC
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:30:32 GMT


From spencer@panix.com (David Spencer)

swkmorri@nuscc.nus.sg (Perry Morrison (Dr)) writes:
>Well, most military excercises in Australia have an enemy force from
>"an island state somewhere to the North". After the indonesian invasion
>of Timor in 1975 and their continued reprsession of the independence
>movement in Timor, plus occasional incursions into Papua New Guinea,
>most observers guess that this "state to the North" is indonesia.

Australia's last major war was against "an island state somewhere to
the North". One that got as close as Milne Bay and the outskirts of
Port Moresby, with designs on Darwin.

To quote Justice Holmes, "A page of history is worth a volume of
logic."

David Spencer     spencer@panix.com
* It is better to be lucky than to be smart. -Napolean
* But it's easier to be smart twice than to be lucky twice. -CG Solsvig


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: kuhnhk@dxcern.cern.ch (Hans-Karl Kuhn)
Subject: USA Timberwolves Division
Followup-To: kuhnhk@cernvm.cern.ch
Summary: US Army Division nicknames
Keywords: Division nicknames
Organization: CERN European Laboratory for Particle Physics
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:39:28 GMT


From kuhnhk@dxcern.cern.ch (Hans-Karl Kuhn)

A friend of mine who lived in Halle, Germany, at the time when WW II ended,
remembers the above USA division nickname. The soldiers belonging to this
division wore patches depicting a wolf's head. He would like to know where
in the US this division had its origins. This division later was replaced
by another one wearing red-white-blue patches, no further description. They
subsequently withdrew and the Soviets took possession of the Halle area.
Anybody knows about them and what are other division nicknames ?

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: hards4@evans.ee.adfa.oz.au (Brad Hards)
Subject: Re: Light aircraft for CAS in Australia
Organization: University College UNSW ADFA Australia
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 1992 12:04:33 GMT


From hards4@evans.ee.adfa.oz.au (Brad Hards)

In article <BtJnKw.92x@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> conrad@pico.qpsx.oz.au writes:

    Well, I live near RAAF Pearse, (in WA) where they carry out jet
Correction - that is  RAAF Pearce
    training.  Until recently they used Macchis (now Pilatus).  Last time I
    visted the base (some years ago) they had one displayed with cannon
    attached to hard points under the wings.  During the early stages of the
    gulf crisis I saw several flying around in camoflage paint jobs (as
    opposed to the noraml red/white training colours).  Whether this was
    part of the gulf-hype or part of the pre-delivery to whoever bought them
    (does anyone know who??) I'm not sure.
Unlikely to be pre-delivery to whoever bought them, since they have not
been sold. Likely to be 25 SQN - fast jet lead in training.



Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu
Subject: Re: Marines in Atlanta
Organization: University of Alaska Fairbanks
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 14:44:15 GMT


From fsjfz@acad3.alaska.edu

In article <BtGIun.Go@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, jlautr01@ulkyvx03.louisville.edu writes:
> 
>       The Marine Corps were conducting practice urban assault missions in 
>       Atlanta last week.  My questions are; Is this a new mission for the 
>       Marine Corps or will they be a part of the security force for the 
>       1996 Olympics.
> 
>       Former never X, Sgt. Autry USMC
>       Semper Fi 

 Depends on which unit was doing the training.  A line infantry battalion needs
to practice such things for GP- you never know, after all.  Combat towns aboard
Pendleton and LeJeune are good for squad level training, but you can't beat a
real city for good training at any higher level.  A lot of the Force
Reconnaissance units have been practicing urban counter-terrorist skills for
several years now, and people i've met from 2nd Force told me (in 1991) that
almost half of their platoons were ``DA'' (for Direct Action- the
counter-terrorist trained people).
 Since the idea never really caught on on the other coast, and DA isn't really
a recon mission, i'm not sure if they would still be doing that kind of work on
such a grand scale over at 2nd Force.  1996 could be a possibility though.
 Do you remember which unit was doing the training, especially active or
reserve?
 
 James Zuelow
 FSJFZ@acad3.alaska.edu

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Marines in Atlanta
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:30:40 GMT


From henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer)

>From jlautr01@ulkyvx03.louisville.edu
>      ... or will they be a part of the security force for the 
>      1996 Olympics.

If memory serves, in the US there are major legal restrictions on using
the military for police duties.  Much more probably they were just doing
some mildly-unconventional training.  Amphibious landings are not the
USMC's only mission.
-- 
There is nothing wrong with making      | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
mistakes, but... make *new* ones. -D.Sim|  henry@zoo.toronto.edu  utzoo!henry
From: CLFPAO@nctamslant.navy.mil (CINCLANTFLT PAO)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Navy News Service Headlines - 19 Aug 92
Date: 23 Aug 92 22:08:52 GMT
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department


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

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

NAVY NEWS SERVICE - 19 AUG 1992 - NAVNEWS 034/92
     Navy News Service (NAVNEWS) contains official news and
information and is intended for distribution to all Navy people.
Please help pass the word.  NAVNEWS is available:
     -- by message to the NAVNEWS collective address 
     -- on the CNO Bulletin Board, 1-800-582-2355/6940 or (703) 695-
6198/6388 
     -- by electronic mail from NAVNEWS(at)NCTAMSLANT.NAVY.MIL 
     -- and on the BUPERS ACCESS bulletin board, 1-800-346-
0217/18/27, 1-800-762-8567 or (703) 614-8070/6059/8076, (DSN) 224-
8070.
                               -USN-

TABLE OF CONTENTS FOR NAVNEWS 034/92
A. Top News and Policy Stories
   A1. Navy Awareness Programs Keep Sailors Safe
   A2. Senate Confirms More Than 2,000 Navy Nominations
   A3. ADM Kelly Concludes Investigation of Tomcat Follies
   A4. More U.S. Bases to End Operations
   A5. Notable Quotable:  ADM Frank B. Kelso II
B. Around the Fleet
   B1. Air Station Saves a Bundle on Bedding                  
   B2. MSC Tanker Uses MFDS, Refuels Indy Underway                  
   B3. Rousing Welcome Greets Antrim at New Homeport
   B4. Navy Christens Fleet Ballistic Missile Submarine Nebraska
   B5. Salute to Excellence:  USS Abraham Lincoln 
   B6. This Week in the Navy:  Aug. 31, 1944
C. Personnel Notes
   C1. VHA Survey Mailed to Commands 
   C2. Surface Command Qualifications Modified
   C3. Voters Can Get Candidate's Views
D. Awards
   D1. 1992 VADM Stockdale Leadership Award Winners Announced
E. Short Splices
   E1. Flag Moves                      
   E2. Navy News This Week
   E3. Editor's Note
                               -USN-
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie)
Subject: Re: propeller planee's anti-torque problem
Organization: Bellcore, Livingston, NJ
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:39:00 GMT


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

In article <BtJnDo.8ur@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:

>Gyroscopic precession came into play upon landing whe  the tail 
>drops. One had to be ready with the rudder when the airplane yaws.

It comes into play in a bigger way on takeoff when the tail comes up.
The Typhoon, with it's relatively tiny rudder, was particularly bad about
departing the runway to the left.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
                    | If you take a dog which is starving and feed him
George Patterson -  | and make him prosperous, that dog will not bite
                    | you. This is the primary difference between a dog
                    | and a man.             Samuel Clemens
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd)
Subject: Re: propeller planee's anti-torque problem
Summary: P-factor is why Airwolf is impossible.
Organization: State University of New York at Buffalo/Comp Sci
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 15:06:19 GMT


From boyd@acsu.buffalo.edu (Daniel F Boyd)

In article <BszLDG.FMB@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> 
dasher!patter@uunet.UU.NET (24224-guthrie) writes:
> [....] The angle of attack of the prop blade(s) which are traveling
> downwards is steeper than the angle of attack of the blade(s)
> traveling upwards. The downwards-traveling blades thus take a bigger
> bite out of the air and produce more thrust than the others. This
> uneven thrust produces a tendency for the aircraft to turn in the
> direction of the upwards traveling prop blades.

P-factor (though it's called something different) is also why you
can't make a conventional helicopter that flies faster than about 200
knots or so.  Say the rotor is going around clockwise.  Then the rotor
blades are going forward (adding the aircraft's airspeed to their own)
on the LEFT side of the aircraft, and going backward (subtracting
etc.) on the RIGHT side of the aircraft.

Helicopter rotors are designed to counter this, by having hinges that
let them flap upwards when they're on the advancing side and by having
their angle of attack automatically reduced a little when they're
advancing.  But it's all a stopgap, because you can't make the
helicopter go so fast that the retreating blades stall.

-- 
Daniel F. Boyd -- boyd@cs.buffalo.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"It's not a System called 'X-Windows', it's a window system named 'X',
after the owl on 'Mister Rogers' Neighborhood'".

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: utidjian%remarque.Berkeley.EDU@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (David M.V. Utidjian)
Subject: Birds getting sucked.
Keywords: airports, FOD, noise, gulls
Organization: Processed People for a Processed America
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:35:33 GMT


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

I seem to remember hearing, some years ago, that there is a problem
at some airports with birds, especially seagulls getting sucked into
commercial and military jet air intakes.  I have heard that this is a
common problem.

Is there any "common" solution??

-poisoning the birds?
-shooting the birds?
-scarecrows?
-sound cannons?
-making a sound that the birds find unpleasant?
-an odor the birds find unpleasant?
-an odor or sound the birds find attractive away from the airport?
-a decoy that looks like a predator?

I have heard mention of all of the above techniques...
What is most successful for coastal airports?
Are there some that I have missed?

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

David Utidjian
utidjian@remarque.berkeley.edu

	"Don't sweat the technique!"
				Anon.


Newsgroups: sci.military