HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 17:00:01 GMT


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

In article <BvE5rp.2sy@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> tomas_e@LINK.Physchem.KTH.SE (Tomas Eriksson) writes:
>>... Since most of the subs are pretty small (around 30 meters or so) 
>>I don't imagine that they are nuclear.

>Let's assume that these submarine activities against Sweden, Norway and a 
>few other places were given high priority and a lot of resources. Remember
>that crew saftey had *low* priority, and remember that the Soviet Union 
>produced satellites with nuclear reactors. If the intruding subs are 
>indeed 30 m long (I think I've heard slightly smaller numbers - a 
>Swedish 1,000 ton submarine is about 50 m long), this is probably
>sufficient to install a small nuclear reactor.

The _could_ have built a reactor this small, but it would have been
very difficult (space-based reactors are a poor comparison: They
only put out tens of kilowatts and are not shielded. They would
put out insufficient power for a submarine and would kill the
crew within a day or two.)

However, this is largely irrelevant: They _didn't_ build such a
submarine. The smallest nuclear submarine they fielded was the 3700-tonne
Alfa class, several times larger that the size being discussed. A
30-meter long submarine would have been a disel-electric boat.

You could always argure that it was some top-secret post-Cold-War 
design, but given the current state of Russia and the rest of the
CIS, I find this hard to believe.

>Our best sub-finders are our own submarines. But weapons are usually 
>launched from surface vessels. I.e. the unarmed man tries to tell the 
>blind man with a rifle where to aim...

As far as I know, western navies _avoid_ coordinating between friendly
submarines and surface ships. After all, the submarine has to surface
to communicate with a ship, thereby severly reducing the value of
such tactics.

As I understand it, the best ASW tactics involve helocopters with 
dipping sonars working in conjunction with their "parent" ships.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)
Subject: Re: How good is the Mig29 vs F16/F18 ?
Organization: Bell Communications Research (Bellcore)
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:47:55 GMT


From fist@iscp.Bellcore.COM (Richard Pierson)

You also have to keep in mind that the soviets acquired
alot of their knowledge through hungry/greedy people who
have access to the info. Ive heard people say they wouldn't
"Do that for a million dollars" when in reality they would
do it for considerably less. Spying was govt business and
now it is shifting more and more to a growth industry in
the civilian sector as more and more companies try to acquire
the technology with out having to do the R & D with its
black hole budgets. I wonder how a civilian company would
prosecute a "spy" selling a better way to make widgets to
a foreign (competitive) power or if the Govt could prosecute
under the espionage laws if it had nothing to do with national
defense
-- 
##########################################################
There are only two types of ships in the NAVY; SUBMARINES 
                 and TARGETS !!!
#1/XS1100LH	#2/10/10/92
Richard Pierson E06584 vnet: [908] 699-6063
Internet: fist@iscp.belcore.com,|| UUNET:uunet!bcr!fist  
#include <std.disclaimer> My opinions are my own!!!
I Don't shop in malls, I by my jeans, jackets and ammo
in the same store.
From: bmhn_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Fearsome Crocostimpy)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Woman in army/ military
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:07:59 GMT
Organization: University of Rochester - Rochester, New York


From bmhn_cif@uhura.cc.rochester.edu (Fearsome Crocostimpy)

Can someone please mail me the restrictions that women have in the military
ie No combat etc.. Someone that I know needs this info for a paper.. Thanks!
Brian S. Meehan
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Frank Crary)
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:35:24 GMT


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

In article <BvE5rA.2ry@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> spencer@panix.com (David Spencer) writes:
>>the environment is _very_ hard for ASW work. With a depth between 30
>>- 100 meters, a lot of small islands, chasms, crags and brackish
>>water the sonar performance is shot to hell. 

>In the WW2 submarine war against Japan, US sub commanders considered
>shallow or restricted water to be suicide. Partly this was because,
>until fairly late in the war, the Japanese set their depth charges too
>shallow, so one could evade by going deep. But more important, because
>Japanese subfinding technology was so primitive, the best tactic was
>to run like hell as soon as the torpedo was out of the tube. Running
>like hell is very difficult in shallow or restricted waters.

>This is even more true now....

Hardly: The ASW technology is no longer "primitive" by any stretch of
the imagination. A sub that tried to "run like hell" would be detected
and localized very quickly. The alternative is to try and avoid
detection. Shallow, costal waters (especially with islands, brackish
water and odd currents) will tend to confuse modern sonars and make hiding
easier.

                                             Frank Crary
                                             CU Boulder

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib)
Subject: Piston engine experiments (Re: In-flight refueling in WWII)
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:38:21 GMT


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

In article <BvCC3y.3z7@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com> writes:
>
>From Joseph F Baugher <jfb@ihlpl.att.com>
>
>In article <Buq5EH.JyB@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, ntaib@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Iskandar Taib) writes:

>> By the way, does anyone have a listing of all the various experimental 
>> Mustangs from the same era (late war, early postwar). I've heard of 
>> a 51J and a 51K for instance..

>Experimental Mustangs?  I can think of only three, the XP-51F, G and J 
>Mustangs, all designed to meet a 1943 AAF requirement for an extremely 
>light, high performance fighter designed to British load factors.  The 
>British Air Commission was also interested in the project, and they 
>requested two of these fighters for evaluation.  

Thanks for posting. That was interesting. 

I find it interesting that they could get 2000 HP out of a Merlin 
on the H. That almost matches the power output of the last Griffons.

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 recall rea-
ding something about such an animal a long time ago and had the vague
idea that it was a Mustang. Apparently such an engine would represent
the best way to squueze the largest amount of cubes into the smallest
volume possible and into the smallest frontal cross section possible.
I also have a faint recollection that the engine was a two stroke - 
apparently by the end of the war, before jets caused cessation of pis-
ton engine fighter development, the engine boffins were experimenting 
with two strokes one way to greatly boost the power density of engines.
No, it probably wasn't your typical lawnmower engine; it was most likely 
sleeve valved or had one intake valve in the head - induction was blower-
induced.



-- 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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: cgb3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (COREY GEORGE BLAKE)
Subject: LeMat 10 shot rebel handgun
Organization: Lehigh University
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:18:54 GMT


From cgb3@ns1.cc.lehigh.edu (COREY GEORGE BLAKE)

In article <BvAs3J.9wG@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, sysadm@pro-cajun.cts.com (John
Mire, System Administrator) writes:
>
>From sysadm@pro-cajun.cts.com (John Mire, System Administrator)
>
>Speaking of civil war firsts, did there exist a pistol that was supposely
>favored by the CSA calvary that had seven shots instead of the usual six?
>
>[mod note -- I believe you are referring to the LeMat revolver -- 6 pistol
>shots, and one shotgun shell in a barrel mounted under the revolver barrel
>
>Steve ]
>
>----
>INET: sysadm@pro-cajun.cts.com                    UUCP: crash!pro-cajun!sysadm
>


    The LeMat revolver had even more "firepower" than you suspect. It featured
    a ten shot cylinder of approximately .40 caliber which revolved around a
    single muzzle loading shotgun barrel of approximately .65 caliber. It
    sounds as if it would be an ugly mutant of a pistol in reality (IMHO) the
    LeMat is one of the most aestheticly pleasinging handguns of all time. The
    LeMat may be a first as a ten shot revolving handgun but the Colt Ring
    Lever Rifle (which featured a ten shot cylinder) predates the civil war
    by over twenty years.
-- 
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
$$$$$$$                          C. G. Blake                            $$$$$$$
|       "... and her, she's got that magna cum laude pussy on her that's      |
|        done fried up your brain!"  ---> Gus                                 |
|                                                                             |
|$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ppl@athena.mit.edu (Paul Podvig)
Subject: Re: Anti-Patriot media is at it again
Organization: Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:40:58 GMT


From ppl@athena.mit.edu (Paul Podvig)

In article <BvE5BL.24t@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> stoffel@oasys.dt.navy.mil (William Stoffel) writes:
>
> [stuff deleted]
>
>One of the experts making the claim for detonation behind the scud used
>videotape (network source?) as evidence.
>
>To the shows credit, they did air rebuttals from both an Army spokesman
>and from a manufacturers rep. (sorry, I don't remember any names). The
>rebuttals included a detailed and (IMO) convincing argument against
>the validity of using video tape for objects closing at several thousand
>mph. There was also discussion of other actions, such as software mods.
>made to the system during this period.
>

The arguments against using of videotape was not convincing at all. The
problem is that the tape made at missile range shows an intercept
through a telescope. Magnification of a regular video camera (even
a professional one) is much lower, which means that you don't have
a good resolution, so even an object moving with 2 km/s speed in
the sky is seen as moving with a speed of about 1-2 pixels per frame
(1/30 sec). With this speed you see events at the point where they
happen, and if you see a detonation behind a Scud that means it was
behind.

The animation they showed is just a fake. There is no way 
to have a high angular resolution (missiles moving with speed
of about 200 pixels per frame (1/30 sec)) and wide field of
view (you can see the intercept point and city skyline at
the same time).



--
Paul Podvig
ppl@athena.mit.edu
DACS, MIT
(617) 253-3846

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: "david.r.wells" <drw@cbnewsg.cb.att.com>
Subject: Re: Carrier Fighters (was: is the A-10 going bye-bye?)
Organization: AT&T
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:44:02 GMT


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

In article <BuBL67.FMG@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose) writes:
>
>From dpe@inel.gov (Don Palmrose)
>
>In article <Bu0Co2.5L2@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM>, youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young) writes:
>> 
>> 
>> From youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)
>> 
>> 
>>    While in the topic of aircraft going away, here is a little tidbit I'd like
>>    confirmed (or not confirmed):  I heard the Navy was going to standardize on
>>    F/A-18s for the carriers.  This would mean the F-14 *and* A-6 would go away.
>> 
To my knowledge, this is, alas, true. I couldn't agree more about the F/A-18s
"short legs". However, they have a new excuse. The new F/A-18s will be of the
"new and improved" E and F types. These will have new wings, new engines,
(probably with a larger fuselage to carry them) and all kinds of other new
stuff. They will end up being almost as heavy and expensive as the F-14s they 
replace. Of course, if we were sneaky, we could have bought F-14Ds for the
new carrier fighter (the development is already done), and bought the
"quickstrike" software for them (developed for the F-15E) and solved both
problems at once for less money, but NOOOOOOOO.

Apologies in advance for getting partisan. And I don't work for Grumman
either.

			David R. Wells

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are not necessarily those
of AT&T.

Newsgroups: sci.military,soc.history
From: military@att.att.com (Bill Thacker)
Subject: 50 Years Ago: Friday, 2 October, 1942
Followup-To: soc.history
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 16:35:06 GMT


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

Friday, 2 October, 1942

The huge British liner Queen Mary rams the cruiser HMS Curacoa off Donegal,
Ireland.  The cruiser is cut in half and sinks with 338 of her crew.  The
Queen Mary, carrying 15,000 American soldiers, is unable to stop for rescue
operations for fear of U-boats.

President Roosevelt signs into law an act granting him powers to control
wages and agricultural prices in an effort to stabilize the cost of living.

American forces from Espiritu Santo occupy Funafuti Atoll in the Ellice
Islands and begin construction of a base there.

--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--	--
Bill Thacker			            military@att.att.com
Send submissions for "50 Years Ago" to military-request@att.att.com

"The war news of the week was highlighted by the heroic and unprecedented
Russian defense of Stalingrad.  Here, between the Don and the Volga in
antipodal contrast with the peaceful surrenders of Paris, Manila and
Singapore, the Russians have written a new page of achievement for defense
in warfare." - Major General Stephen O. Fuqua, US Army, Retired
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Greg Ervice <ervice@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>
Subject: Info Request-Walter Soplata Collection
Organization: NCR Corporation - Law Department
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:44:44 GMT


From Greg Ervice <ervice@hpsdde.sdd.hp.com>


Has anyone personally visited the Walter Soplata collection in Ohio?

Several references list him as having a fairly substantial collection, e.g,
F2G Corsair, B-36 (incomplete), AD Skyraider, etc.  The collection has been
pictured primarily in open fields near Newbury, Ohio.

I'm interested in an accurate list of his holdings and a short description
of each a/c's condition.

E-mail if you prefer.

Greg

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: kaiser@elec.canterbury.ac.nz (Chris Kaiser)
Subject: Re: Piston engine experiments (Re: In-flight refueling in WWII)
Keywords: refueling, flight, WWII
Organization: Electrical Engineering, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 12:25:15 GMT


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.

Chris Kaiser

Postgrad, Elec. Eng. Dept.
University of Canterbury
Christchurch, NEW ZEALAND
From: trip@cco.caltech.edu (Trip)
Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Re: Kinetic Energy Tank Killers
Date: 29 Sep 92 13:03:38 GMT
Organization: California Institute of Technology, Pasadena


From trip@cco.caltech.edu (Trip)

saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs) writes:


>From saj@chinet.chi.il.us (Stephen Jacobs)
>In article <Bv3CHv.MI2@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> RSCH2867@cl.uh.edu writes:
>>From RSCH2867@cl.uh.edu
>>I'm sorry I didn't have the chance to convert 100 million joules to
>>something really familiar like the heat necessary to roast a car -
>>maybe someone in net land can come up with that. The tricky part to the
>>weapon was guidence - which

>This is a pretty marginal-sounding amount of energy to direct at a
>tank.  The standard 'popular' explanation of a megajoule is that it's
>the energy released by burning a jelly donut (look around yourself:
>I've seen this several different places).  So let's say 10^8 joule is
>the energy of a pound or 2 of explosives.

Actually, a megajoule is the energy released by setting off about 200g
of C4 (5kJ/g). So, 100 MJ is equivalent to 20kg of C4, which is fairly
respectable. Explosives aren't particularly good energy storage, but
they do release what they have very quickly.

Trip				|   Never take a stranger's advice
President, ECNG			|   Never let a friend fool you twice
(trip@cobalt.cco.caltech.edu)	|   Nobody's on nobody's side
				|			-_Chess_
Newsgroups: sci.military
From: youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)
Subject: Re: Sweden Attacks Sub?
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:50:15 GMT


From youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Scott D. Young)

In <BvCCHq.4Gr@lawday.DaytonOH.NCR.COM> knude@daimi.aau.dk (Per Knudsgaard) writes:


>From knude@daimi.aau.dk (Per Knudsgaard)
>matter in the last couple of years, and secondly, would this not lead to a less
>aggresive attitude from the swedes? I would surely shoot, but make damned sure I 
>missed if there was the slightest chance that whatever I was shooting after had
>nuclear arms aboard.

   Why is this so? The nuclear arms (probably a torpedo) would not detonate just
   because you sink the sub. Nuclear torpedoes (and other weapons, for that
   matter) are designed so that they will only explode after being properly
   armed. There might be a slight chance of causing a radiation leak (I don't
   have any info on this), but the small warhead would not contaminate too
   much. Besides, if you sink the sub, you can always salvage it (in shallow
   water, remember) and recover the weapon in addition to idenntifying the
   nationality of the intruder.

   Scott Young
   youngs@ccu.umanitoba.ca

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: akula@ecst.csuchico.edu (Guo Han-Zhang)
Subject: Advanced WWII German Tanks
Organization: California State University, Chico
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 16:56:38 GMT


From akula@ecst.csuchico.edu (Guo Han-Zhang)

I am playing a WWII tactical simulation games on Sega Megadrive/Genesis now.
They are some German new weapons in the game, such as Messerschmitt P.1101,
JU-287 bomber, HS-293 dive bomber as well as advanced armours, such as E-50
,E-75 , E-100, and Panther II. I can find all the references of the aircraft
but failed to find any of the new tanks. 
I've never seen any of these tanks in any books. In the game's data, the E-50
has a 88mm/L71 main gun and is faster than the Phanther, the E-75 has a 128mm 
gun , seemed like the one used on Jadgtiger. The Panther II also has the same
88mm/L71 used on King Tiger. Could anybody tell me where can I find the refer- 
ences of those tanks /* if they really existed */ ? Any help will be appreciated.


Newsgroups: sci.military
From: Urban F <urf@ki.icl.se>
Subject: Misc
Organization: None. I speak only for myself.
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:40:21 GMT


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

The AIM-7R Sparrow isn't just an IR version. It's going to be a dual
seeker missile, with the IR seeker in front of the radar seeker.
[All other dual seeker AAM designs I've seen jettisons the radar
seeker to clear the IR seeker used for terminal homing.]

GE wants to interest the USAF in a hypersonic air launched anti-
tactical ballistic missile missile. Aircraft sensor would be an IRST,
which would provide mid-course guidance for the IR missile. The
interceptor would weigh 8 kg and be boosted by an "AMRAAM-sized"
rocket motor.
The targets would be detected when they break cloud cover 30 s after
launch at a range of 100 km. The interceptor would be accelerated to a
speed of 4 km/s (~Mach 10) in 4 s (=100 G) and hit the target 40 s later.
Some parts would be common with a SDI project for a electro-
magnetically ground-launched interceptor.
[To me this sounds like planning for the last war. You can't expect
that all future opponents with V-2 derivative missiles will be
countries small, poor and underdevloped enough to let your fighters fly
over them unmolested.]

Loral is working on a laser radar, LADAR [when I worked in a
meteorologists' office, we called it LIDAR], intended for a range of
low-cost weapons. Cost is less than US$15,000, weight 5.5 kg, lenght
19 cm, range "several kilometers". Its high precision enables it to
identify targets very well.

The South African attack helicopter Roivalk's sight system has a
record/replay/pre-align feature. This means the crew can pop up very
quickly, duck behind cover and select and pre-designate targets, pop
up for quick shot.

[Flight International 23-29 Sept, 30 Sept - 6 Oct]
-- 
 Urban Fredriksson   urf@icl.se  (n.g.u.fredriksson.swe2001@oasis.icl.co.uk)

PS. Have you noticed that almost nobody have mentioned in the press
that the only aircraft to fly during the bad wheather on the first
Farnborough show day, was the same that was ridiculed for waiting for
better wheather conditions, before flying to Finland for the
evaluation?   Gripen of course.

Newsgroups: sci.military
From: ovrskeek@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (I am the OVER-skeek!)
Subject: Re: : How good is the Mig-29 VS the F16/F18 ?
Organization: Kansas State University
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:31:21 GMT


From ovrskeek@matt.ksu.ksu.edu (I am the OVER-skeek!)

ooi@latcs1.lat.oz.au (Jeffrey K Ooi) writes:

>8) If the mig goes out of control, or the pilot becomes disoriented, all the
>pilot has to do is hit a panic button   and the computer brings prompt, 
>automatic recovery.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the Mig 29 is NOT a fly by wire
design. I think most of your other points are bogus too, but I don't have
my Ref. Lib. here.

------------------------
ovrskeek@matt.ksu.ksu.edu


Newsgroups: sci.military