brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass personal account) (09/12/90)
From: edat!brian@uunet.UU.NET (brian douglass personal account) To: military@cbnews.att.com Subject: Re: F-117A Fighter or Attack? Newsgroups: sci.military In-Reply-To: <1990Sep10.054013.5557@cbnews.att.com> Organization: Electronic Data Technologies, Inc. Cc: In article <1990Sep10.054013.5557@cbnews.att.com> Bob McCormick writes: >1) Does anybody know why the F-117 Stealth fighter is called a "fighter"? >>From what I understand, it is more like an attack plane, designed to hit >defended targets. As was mentioned in this group recently, the Air Force >might have had less trouble with the F-11 program if it had been A-111. The F-117A is not designed as a ground support aircraft, that is supporting the Army (I always thought it should mean Army instead of Attack). Bombers belong to SAC, the F-117 belongs to TAC. It is truly a Tacitical Bomber, versus Strategic or Attack. Therefore F is the only designation available. >2) Has the Air Force released the list of weapons carried by the F-117A? >It has been noticably missing from the descriptions that I have read. I know that it carrys 2 2000lb bombs. MK-84s at least. I do not know if it has Air- to-Air capability (Radar, Missle pylons) as most AA capability is not stealthy. You're pretty obvious when your radar is on. >3) Regarding the F-111, _The Great Book of Combat Aircraft_ by >Bill Gunston, Mike Spick, and others has an interesting cut-away view of >and F-111 with Sidewinders AAM and a Bullpup ASM in its weapons bay. >Caption said it was an early drawing by General Dynamics, done before >the plane flew. F-111s were retrofited with a wing pylon and can carry one AIM-9, a J I beleive. >4) For a name for the Stealth Fighter, how about Black Arrow? It is shaped >like an arrowhead. It is called the NightHawk. Fairly apprapoe I think. --- Brian Douglass uunet!edat!brian
ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Allan Bourdius) (09/18/90)
From: Allan Bourdius <ab3o+@andrew.cmu.edu> NightHawk? I thought that that was the nickname for the spec ops version of the Sikorsky H-60 series for use by the USA and the USAF. --Allan
mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu (09/27/90)
From: mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu In article <1990Sep24.001114.22188@cbnews.att.com>, jimcat@rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes: > I'm curious about the locations of battleships in the United States > and elsewhere (if there are any elsewhere). USS NORTH CAROLINA is at Wilmington, NC. I believe that USS ALABAMA is also a museum at Mobile, AL. USS OLYMPIA, while not a true battleship, an armored cruiser, is on the Delaware River in Philadelphia. I think below the Ben Franklin Bridge, (can't keep the Franklin and Walt Whitman bridges apart). OLYMPIA was Admiral Dewey's flagship at the Battle of Manilla Bay in the Spanish_American War. Mike
leif@sugar.hackercorp.com (Lee King) (10/01/90)
From: leif@sugar.hackercorp.com (Lee King) In article <1990Sep27.031257.6534@cbnews.att.com>, mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu writes: > From: mlfisher@ohstpy.mps.ohio-state.edu > In article <1990Sep24.001114.22188@cbnews.att.com>, jimcat@rpi.edu (Jim Kasprzak) writes: > > I'm curious about the locations of battleships in the United States > > and elsewhere (if there are any elsewhere). > > USS NORTH CAROLINA is at Wilmington, NC. I believe that USS ALABAMA is also a > museum at Mobile, AL. USS OLYMPIA, while not a true battleship, an armored > cruiser, is on the Delaware River in Philadelphia. I think below the Ben > Franklin Bridge, (can't keep the Franklin and Walt Whitman bridges apart). > OLYMPIA was Admiral Dewey's flagship at the Battle of Manilla Bay in the > Spanish_American War. > > Mike Don't forget U.S.S. Texas! Texas just recently returned to its permanent berth near the San Jacinto Monument (site of the Texian Army's defeat of Santa Anna in the Texas Revolution) after a major refit. After many years of neglect, the old girl (only surviving battleship that served in both World Wars) was completely refurbished at Todd Shipyards in Galveston. She is now in a free-floating berth off the Houston Ship Channel, dressed out in the Pacific Blue of her last active duty service with the Pacific Fleet in WW II (Iwo Jima, Okinawa and the surrender in Tokyo Bay). She also served in the D Day invasion (fire support) and in general Atlantic Fleet duty in WW I. I missed the rededication, but I hope to get down and see her soon. -- The Libertarian Party -- the Party of Principle I'm the NRA
shoop@spcssi.sequor.com (Dan Shoop --- `The reason for time is so everything doesn't happen all at once') (11/06/90)
From: shoop@spcssi.sequor.com (Dan Shoop --- `The reason for time is so everything doesn't happen all at once') In article <1990Sep6.153556.24104@cbnews.att.com>, deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) writes: > From: deichman@cod.nosc.mil (Shane D. Deichman) > > In article <1990Aug29.014406.7218@cbnews.att.com> jon@cs.washington.edu (Jon Jacky) writes: >>Several postings to this newsgroup have asserted that there is "no doubt" that >>cruise missiles could be "quite literally flown through the kitchen window" >> Perhaps you could just look at the picture ads in Jane's where they show a cruise missle flying through a barn window seconds before it blows up... -- ================================================================================ Dan Shoop UUCP: ...uunet!spcssi!shoop Manager of Systems Support Internet: shoop@spcssi.sequor.com Security Pacific Software Services AT&Tnet: 212.425.0200 The Sequor Group ICBMnet: 40 45 N / 73 30 W ================================================================================ Your standard disclaimer here. Nuke 'um 'til they glow, then shoot 'um in the dark.
amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) (11/19/90)
From: amichiel@rodan.acs.syr.edu (Allen J Michielsen) military@att.att.com Subject: Re: Air Guard? References: <1990Nov15.013605.1936@cbnews.att.com> <1990Nov17.014636.27782@cbnews.att.com> Sender: amichiel@sunrise.acs.syr.edu Organization: Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY In article <1990Nov17.014636.27782@cbnews.att.com> jabusch@osiris.cso.uiuc.edu >>From: lsmith@unssun.nevada.edu (LARRY SMITH) >>not all of the unit (a T.R.G.) was sent, just 120 volunteers. >>Is it normal for a unit to be split like this, and when a guard > >Many of these activations were still not really federal activations... >In many of these cases the guardsmen volunteered...some..high...small groups.. > >There are some sensitive issues regarding volunteer versus federalizing >for the guardsman. These issues center on pay and benefits for the >member and his/her family for the most part. It is better from >these points of view to be activated as opposed to volunteering. I don't feel that this point can be expressed strongly enough. The difference (for benefits {themselves, and their families}) is MAJOR. I don't have the expertise to properly explain, and won't try in depth. But in essence, if a gaurd person volunteers, they become essentially a free tag-a-long. The medical & death benefits for their family are virtually non existant. The job protection (for their principal job) is greatly dimished. They don't quality for federal (family) hardship financial help and (credit) protection. What's worse, if or when the unit does become activated (completely--officially) they are like gradfathered OUT of the benefits they deserve (earn). I think the situation is both shabby and shamefull. It only makes sense that units that are virtually assured of being actrivated would have low 'volunteer' rates, since they would loose a geat deal of the benefits they 'need' for their families. This shouldn't suggest (and nobody has, here,) that this reflects or suggests not wanting to go or anything. al
veeneman@mot.com (Dan Veeneman) (11/20/90)
From: veeneman@mot.com (Dan Veeneman) > From: v064lnev@ubvmsd.cc.buffalo.edu (Zerxes Bhagalia) > Could someone please point out the distinctions between a thermonuclear > device and a plain old run-of-the-mill nuclear device. Thanks in advance 8-). The terms "atomic," "nuclear," and "thermonuclear" have been bantered around in the press and non-technical publications rather freely, lending to some confusion. The term "atomic bomb" (referred to by the designers as a "device") describes the fission process of detonation, caused by the extremely rapid decay of a heavy element, either uranium or plutonium. The delay is started by bringing the element into a sufficient density ("critical mass") that the neutron flux inside the mass will exceed the threshold for a sustained reaction. The element decay is triggered by the introduction of a neutron at the proper kinetic energy (neutrons with energy too high or too low reduce the bomb efficiency). The decay itself produces more neutrons, thus continuing the cycle. The neutron "cascade" is generally primed by a booster that provides the initial neutrons (beryllium, for example). The term "thermonuclear" describes the Teller-Ulam class of (hydrogen) bombs currently in use by world powers. (In these countries, the thermonuclear weapons *are* run-of-the-mill). To greatly simplify, picture a fission bomb surrounded by a framework of light elements (hydrogen, helium, etc, i.e. those with low atomic weights). The fission device in the center is triggered, creating a number of effects, but most importantly a small area of extreme heat and pressure. The heat and pressure force the light elements to fuse together ("fusion") and in the process release binding energy. These devices can be tweaked for increased performance by the use of matched elements and the addition of "reflectors". By the way, a similar thermonuclear process is currently operating 93 million miles away, powering the sun. The term "nuclear" is a throwaway word that specifies subatomic action, but could be either fission or fusion. Hope this helps. -- Dan veeneman@mot.com
news@hoss.unl.edu (Network News Administer) (11/22/90)
From: Network News Administer <news@hoss.unl.edu> Newsgroups: sci.military Path: hoss.unl.edu!chem001 >From: chem001@hoss.unl.edu (Jonathan Skean) Subject: Re: Left-handed carriers Message-ID: <1990Nov20.065309.4277@hoss.unl.edu> Sender: news@hoss.unl.edu (Network News Administer) Organization: University of Nebraska, Computing Resource Center References: <1990Nov15.013451.1767@cbnews.att.com> <1990Nov16.051921.21655@cbnews.att.com> Date: Tue, 20 Nov 90 06:53:09 GMT >And why starboard islands? From what I have read, the torque of the >screws in standard warship powerplants makes it easier to turn right >than left, and you usually want the island on the inside of the turn. I'm not sure why islands were located to starboard in the first place, but a benefit to USN aircraft was related to *aircraft* torque, not ship's torque. The fabulously overpowered prop fighters which joined the fleet mostly too late for WWII generated so much torque in the waveoff mode of operation that loosing control from applying too much power was a distinct hazzard. The flight controls didn't have nearly enough authority to keep the fighter from being rolled hard left by the power of the right-turning prop. When a pilot overpowered an F8F Bearcat or the like, if he didn't reduce throttle real soon, he would spiral out of control upside down and into the ocean. On US carriers, it was nice for the ship and crew that this flight path was to the left of the aircraft's original flightpath. I wonder what it was like for high powered foreign airplanes which have left-hand rotating props which cause them to roll right under power?
veeneman@mot.com (Dan Veeneman) (12/19/90)
From: veeneman@mot.com (Dan Veeneman) Subject: Re: RE: Autorotation of Harriers > From: joefish@uunet.uu.net (joefish) > > [...] > > For military helicopters, if a blade hits a tree trunk, expect the > transmission to separate from the aircraft. Actually, transmission separation from the aircraft is extremely unlikely. Depending on the thickness and density of the tree, as well as the thickness, weight, and composition of the blades, several things could happen: 1. The rotor blade cuts the tree without sustaining damage. Small saplings and young bamboo cut rather nicely. It is not, however, an approved maneuver. :-) 2. The rotor blade cuts the tree and deforms and/or begins to delaminate. This would require either refurbishing the blade(s) or, more likely, discarding them. Transmission failure may or may not occur. It would have to removed and inspected for "sudden stoppage" to determine the extent of the damage, if any. At the time of impact, the ability of the ship to remain in the air would be determined by the condition of the blades, not the transmission. 3. The rotor blade fails to cut the tree. The blade will definitely deform. In addition, the most likely fail point would be where the rotor connects to the hub - the blade(s) disconnect from the hub. Transmission *failure* may or may not occur (not that it makes much difference). Even these incidents are often survivable, as contact is often made at low altitudes and low airspeeds. (NOE is something else, of course). > > If the tree is on one side the transmission goes backward, if the tree > is on the other side, the transmission goes through the cockpit. In the event of a catastrophic failure, the transmission gearing would most likely shred itself and go in all sorts of directions. > > Joe Fischer joefish@disk.UUCP Dan veeneman@mot.com
moudgill@cs.cornell.edu (Mayan Moudgill) (01/27/91)
From: moudgill@cs.cornell.edu (Mayan Moudgill) I wonder-- what (military) problems are there about fighting in the desert. I know that cause of the heat single engin helicopters can only carry 1/2 or so of their usual payload. Dust creates _severe_ maintainance problems. Any others? :) mayan
t6mx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu (02/04/91)
From: t6mx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu Can somebody tell me exactly what the low level depleted uranium compounds found on the M-1 and other equipment do? I mean, has it been tested? What is the sense of its defensive capabilites. What damage, in general, would someone estimate a standard T-55 could do at say a 100meters? Ed Landgraf t6mx@vax5.cit.cornell.edu
boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au (02/05/91)
From: boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Why no Hellfire on fixed-wing attack aircraft? Summary: Expires: References: <1991Feb4.064043.20651@cbnews.att.com> Sender: Followup-To: Reply-To: Distribution: Organization: NEC Information Systems Australia Pty. Ltd. Keywords: In article <1991Feb4.064043.20651@cbnews.att.com> dnwiebe@cis.ohio-state.edu (Dan N Wiebe) writes: > > Given that LGBs are dropped from fixed-wing aircraft, how come >the A-10, for example, isn't fitted with a laser designator and cleared >to launch Hellfire instead of Maverick? Wouldn't it be cheaper? It may be cheaper, but if I were driving an A-10 I'd go for the Maverick. It's fire and forget so there's no need to loiter to designate the target. I read somewhere that the A-10's operational profile was to stay low, pop up, engage and then evade. Loitering over the target can seriously damage your health. Boyd Roberts boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au ``When the going gets wierd, the weird turn pro...''
boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au (02/05/91)
From: boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Ejection seats Summary: Expires: References: <1991Feb4.052511.15316@cbnews.att.com> Sender: Followup-To: Reply-To: Distribution: Organization: NEC Information Systems Australia Pty. Ltd. Keywords: In article <1991Feb4.052511.15316@cbnews.att.com> voder!nsc!dtg.nsc.com!alan@decwrl.dec.com (Alan Hepburn) writes: > >... Can a pilot survive a punch out through >a canopy? > It's not a problem on a Harrier as there is a `detonation cord' around the canopy which shatters it just prior to ejection. Boyd Roberts boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au ``When the going gets wierd, the weird turn pro...''
stevenb@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Babin Steven M. S1R x6704 ) (02/07/91)
From: stevenb@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu (Babin Steven M. S1R x6704 ) SUBJECT:Bunker Busting of S. Hussein Various people have discussed how to destroy a hardened bunker using sundry types of munitions. Why not just drop tons of wet concrete on it like they did at Chernobyl? This would plug up all the ventilator shafts and turn the bunker into a tomb. I don't recall the details of how they did it at Chernobyl except that they used aircraft of some type to fly overhead and drop it. First, of course, you kill the AAA, then fly in and drop some substance that will seal all the ventilation, entrances, etc. This substance might not be concrete but something easier to deliver. Once you did this to one bunker, the people in the other bunkers would probably want to come out into the open. Ugh, sounds pretty awful to me. Are there any experts out there who could comment on whether this would really work?
d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) (02/07/91)
From: d9bertil@dtek.chalmers.se (Bertil Jonell) In article <1991Feb5.040524.4232@cbnews.att.com> boyd@necisa.ho.necisa.oz.au writes: >In article <1991Feb4.052511.15316@cbnews.att.com> voder!nsc!dtg.nsc.com!alan@decwrl.dec.com (Alan Hepburn) writes: >> >>... Can a pilot survive a punch out through >>a canopy? All Swedish Airforce planes with ejection seats are built so that the pilot can eject through the canopy and survive. It is however not recommendable. I know that the seat in the SK-60 trainer has a very high back that are designed to shatter the canopy and protect the pilots head during ejection. On the other hand, the checklist for emergencies says that the canopy lock shall be disengaged before ejection (this will cause the canopy to tear lose from the plane) probably because ejecting through the canopy is more hazardous and more or less unessesary in peacetime. One disadvantage from making the seat so that the pilot can punch out through the canopy is that the high seat back will hinder the backwards vision of the pilot in combat. The advantage is naturally that the pilot can eject faster and in a wider envelope. -bertil- -- >From the foolfile: "The Baltic states are not occupied" - Swedish Foreign Minister Sten Andersson
dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) (02/13/91)
From: dfo@tko.vtt.fi (Foxvog Douglas) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Is the US running low on bombs? Summary: 1/4 to 1/2 million already expended Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Organization: Technical Research Centre of Finland, Computer Laboratory Keywords: The US and its partners have flown over 30,000 bombing missions with planes carrying 10 - 40 bombs (someone have figures for different planes -- what they CAN carry?) each. This seems to indicate around 1/4 to 1/2 million bombs have been dropped*. The US certainly wants to maintain a large number for use during the upcoming ground offensive. Does anyone know what the US supply of bombs is, of different types and whether they might now be starting to run low on specific types or in general? How many bombs has the US shipped to the area? Does anyone have a ballpark estimate? What is the total US stockpile? What is current production rate? It might cause pressure to start the ground war earlier if the military perceived that its supply of bombs was running low. doug foxvog dfo@tko.vtt.fi * 80% success rate, average number of expended bombs = 10 & 20 63,000+ announced sorties
news@hoss.unl.edu (Network News Administer) (02/15/91)
From: Network News Administer <news@hoss.unl.edu> Newsgroups: sci.military Path: hoss.unl.edu!chem001 >From: chem001@hoss.unl.edu (Jonathan Skean) Subject: Re: Aircraft turnaround and maintenance Message-ID: <1991Feb14.004040.18190@hoss.unl.edu> Sender: news@hoss.unl.edu (Network News Administer) Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln References: <1991Feb13.221910.6268@cbnews.att.com> Date: Thu, 14 Feb 91 00:40:40 GMT Lines: 31 In <1991Feb13.221910.6268@cbnews.att.com> jlc@milton.u.washington.edu (Jeffrey Casterline) writes: > a. Are aircraft assigned to only one pilot? All this is based on my experience as enlisted flight deck crew 1969-1977, so more up-to-date comments would be appreciated. One pilot? Nope, available aircraft are assigned to available pilots. Often a more senior pilot will invoke rank to bump a junior out of a desirable ride. Each bird has a pilot's name on one side and the enlisted plane captain's name on the other. Both were only symbolic. > b. How often do these high-tech, sophisticated, planes need a complete overhaul." Complete overhauls are undertaken at special facilities at intervals of many months or a few years. Fairly serious repairs involving downtime of several days might strike at any time but scheduled maintenance usually doesn't take an aircraft out of service beyond a day or so. > c. Is the payload of one of the navy aircraft restricted >when launched from a land base? Not at all. The ancient F-8J's I worked on occasionally operated out of Danang when things where really desperate and they didn't need much of the available runway. The advantage of operations ashore is mainly the extra space. The overwhelming characteristic of life aboard a carrier is always being crowded. When I visited a DE (now a frigate, I suppose) I was amazed at the vast space per capita. -- Jonathan Skean U of Nebr Chem CHEM001@HOSS.UNL.EDU JSKEAN@UNLCDC2.BITNET _INFINITI_ "Wi maik karz az gud az wi spel!"
news@newcastle.ac.uk (02/18/91)
From: news@newcastle.ac.uk Newsgroups: sci.military Path: turing!n01qu >From: A.G.Poole@newcastle.ac.uk (A.G.Poole) Subject: Re: How many planes in a sortie? Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU Message-ID: <1991Feb15.112538.8301@newcastle.ac.uk> Sender: news@newcastle.ac.uk Date: Fri, 15 Feb 1991 11:25:38 GMT References: <1991Feb9.034021.5022@cbnews.att.com> gnb@bby.oz.au (Gregory N. Bond) writes: >The Gulf news has been full of phrases like "2,000 sorties flown per >day". I guess "missions" are flown with multiple planes, at least >three and maybe more (e.g. 3 for attack plus 3 for air cover), but do >those six planes count as one sortie, two or six? Each aircraft flight counts as a sortie, so there have been 2000 takeoffs/landings per day (ish). Most missions happen (at least in RAF) with a two or four ship; three is unusual (I don't know why...). In this case, there will usually be a two-ship attacking a target, with a fighter back-up (again a two-ship), although some Tornado missions have been unaccompanied - they have a good self-defence system built in. Anyway, to answer your question, if they say "2000 _attack_ sorties flown" they mean 2000 attack aircraft (Tornado GR-1, F-117, etc) have flown, PLUS the escorts (where applicable). Basically, a hell of a lot of planes in the sky! >Corollary: How many takeoffs/landings have happend at the 50,000 >sortie-level? (May need to guess!) 50,000 - unless they specify attack sorties, in which case it could be many more (see above) >Followup: What is the "expected" loss rate for military flights, >takeoffs & landings in a non-shooting environment? Given the 20-odd >planes lost in Desert Storm, and the sortie rate, how many of them >would be expected to be lost due to mechanical failure? This is fairly difficult to estimate, mainly 'cos the forces tend to be a bit coy on the subject of the number of sorties. The RAF are *below* their normal loss rate, though, having lost 7 Tornado's (at time of writing), 5 to enemy action and two thru' mechanical failure. A lot have come home with some pretty impressive battle damage, yet another testament to the skill of the pilots (all coallition, not just RAF - tho' I am biased, of course!) Hope thats useful! Alex. --------------- Alex Poole, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK Internet n01qu@turing.ncl.ac.uk All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy This is no way reflects the views of the University or the RAF(VR) ---------------
news@newcastle.ac.uk (02/19/91)
From: news@newcastle.ac.uk Newsgroups: sci.military Path: turing!n01qu >From: A.G.Poole@newcastle.ac.uk (Alex Poole) Subject: Re: Ejection seats Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU Message-ID: <1991Feb18.105910.2424@newcastle.ac.uk> Sender: news@newcastle.ac.uk Date: Mon, 18 Feb 1991 10:59:10 GMT References: <1991Feb12.014459.9718@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb13.031100.25568@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb18.054827.12104@cbnews.att.com> geoffm@EBay.Sun.COM (Geoff Miller) writes: >From: Mary Shafer <shafer@skipper.dfrf.nasa.gov> >>Paul Tomblin wrote: >> Personally, I'd prefer ejection seats with canopy cutters. (Then again, >> I'd probably prefer the "Escape Capsule" proposed for the F-111) The escape capsule is supposed to be very dodgy to use (eg when inverted could be a prob... although ejection seats *can* be v. dangerous at low levels... there was an incident a few years back when a pilot practising for a military display had an emergancy, initiated ejection, then couldn't prevent himself from rolling inverted; he left the s/c rather fast, 50 ft above the runway and heading down... there wasn't supposed to be much of him left...) > In the film _Flight Of the Intruder_, the pilot and B/N ejected > through the closed canopy. Considering the sliding design of > the A-6's canopy, I thought that it was jettisoned early in the > ejection sequence. Was this supposed to depict a malfunction of > the canopy-jettison mechanism, or do the crewmembers actually > eject through the plexiglass? I haven't heard of closed-canopy ejection, and as a pilot, I don't fancy it much!!! If you think about it, the seat has enough power to blast you 500 ft clear of the cockpit... enough to shorten your spine by 2 inches and put you in hospital for 3 weeks (avg); we don't nned a perspex barrier as well!! > Does anybody know why the A-3 isn't fitted with ejection seats, > but instead uses an escape-slide system? No, sounds silly to me; its supposed to be far less reliable than the seats > As an aside, I'd long wondered what the purpose was of the zigzag- > ging wires commonly seen along the top of some fighter canopies. > I figured that they were antennas of some kind, but it turns out > that they're actually small explosive charges that would break the > canopy during an ejection. These seem to be more common on Britsh > planes than on American fighters. The zig-zag lines are a minature detonation cord (MDC), a line of explosive detonated silumtaneously from both ends (so a break in the cord won't be fatal). This is just a back-up to the canopy jetison method, and both happen automatically. I haven't seen it on US aircraft, but then I don't often get a chance to see them up close. By the way, if the system was fitted to F-14's, Goose wouldn't have died!! His problem was hitting the canopy after it was jetissoned... isn't the F-14 zero-zero ejection?? if not, wht not??? Answers on a postcard, please... Alex ----- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy.
news@newcastle.ac.uk (02/19/91)
From: news@newcastle.ac.uk Newsgroups: sci.military Path: turing!n01qu >From: A.G.Poole@newcastle.ac.uk (Alex Poole) Subject: Re: Aircraft turnaround and maintenance Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU Message-ID: <1991Feb18.133203.7598@newcastle.ac.uk> Sender: news@newcastle.ac.uk Date: Mon, 18 Feb 1991 13:32:03 GMT References: <1991Feb13.221910.6268@cbnews.att.com> jlc@milton.u.washington.edu (Jeffrey Casterline) writes: > As a mere observer, I have another set of questions about >how the air operations really work. Excuse me, please, if these >seem simple or stupid: Not at all, not much attention has been paid to details... this may be for security reasons, but this is unlikely as all this is available in books! > a. Are aircraft assigned to only one pilot? I could see >an advantage to having only one particular ground crew. But, with >turnaround time being what it is and the rest requirements for pilots >after extended missions, do they assign more than one pilot per plane >to maximize efficiency for the use of the aircraft? Yes. Each plane is tailored for its aircrew (pilot/navigator in the RAF, pilot (or a/c commander)/weapons system officer in the USAF/USN). The seats etc are built for the crew, with HUDs etc aligned for his (or her...) particular height. There is also an advantage that each a/c is *slightly* different, and keeping with one means that you learn the unique effects of your personal bird; some nasty accidents could occur if you're used to fly on the edge of the envelope in one a/c, and you have to swap to an a/c with even marginally different operating parameters. This doesn't matter as much now as it once did, as they are built to much more exacting standars, but changing planes *does* make a difference. > b. I read and hear that thousands of sorties are flown each >day and this has been continuing for weeks. How often to these high- >tech, sophisticated, planes need a "complete overhaul." I assume that >aircraft are being cycled in and out of service. But, are we reaching >a point more progressively more aircraft will require extended downtime? Yes, sort of. Only having one crew per plane means that there is a fair amount of time spent on the ground anyway, and military a/c are *the* best maintained machines in the world (altho' no doubt the Army/Navy will argue about this...). The servicing on a/c is very thorough, and *any* fault will ground the plane until it is fixed. Normally, this is not a problem, as there is usually enough time betwen flights for most minor time. As time goes on, tho', general wear and tear, made worse by the conditions in which the planes have to fly, will result in an increased amount of servicing, but the crews work as hard as they can to prevent this becoming necessary, by routine maintanace. > c. Is the payload of one of the navy aircraft restricted >when launched from a land base? On an aircraft carrier, the catapult >aids the takeoff. With no such ground assist, do these planes carry >less when they take off from a land base? It shouldn't make a differnce; if anything, they should have *more* payload on land, as their take-off run is not so restricted. Alas, I don't really know much about carrier ops, so I can't give a real answer. Sorry. > Thanks to all who will help me understand. Your welcome... Alex ----- All I ask is the chance to prove that money can't make me happy. ----- People who think they know it all really annoy those of us who do -----
news@newcastle.ac.uk (02/21/91)
From: news@newcastle.ac.uk Newsgroups: sci.military Path: turing!n01qu >From: A.G.Poole@newcastle.ac.uk (Ford (Alex Poole)) Subject: Re: A/C launches w/o cats Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU Message-ID: <1991Feb19.151936.25787@newcastle.ac.uk> Keywords: F14s, Carriers Sender: news@newcastle.ac.uk Date: Tue, 19 Feb 1991 15:19:36 GMT References: <1991Feb13.030707.24844@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb15.065422.9073@cbnews.att.com> <1991Feb19.032446.18028@cbnews.att.com> rcm@mtuxo.att.com (R Craig Montero) writes: >From: rcm@mtuxo.att.com (R Craig Montero) >One item to add to the discussion on launching A/C without using catapults. >The F14 has a theoritical takeoff roll on the order of 900' (~277m). Thus, >given a flight deck of 1000+' (308+m), a Tomcat could make it off the deck. >There was at least one attempt to try this fairly early in the life cycle of >the F14 (which was less than successful). OK, so its possible... would YOU like to try it??? Its bad enough *with* the catapult!! Ford ----- Here, put this fish in your ear.
news@newcastle.ac.uk (02/26/91)
From: news@newcastle.ac.uk Newsgroups: sci.military Path: turing!n01qu >From: A.G.Poole@newcastle.ac.uk (Ford (Alex Poole)) Subject: Re: Aircraft turnaround and maintenance Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU Message-ID: <1991Feb22.155648.9288@newcastle.ac.uk> Sender: news@newcastle.ac.uk Date: Fri, 22 Feb 1991 15:56:48 GMT References: <1991Feb20.054628.2890@cbnews.att.com> paj@gec-mrc.co.uk (paj) writes: >From: paj <paj@gec-mrc.co.uk> >A.G.Poole@newcastle.ac.uk (Alex Poole) writes about aircraft in the Gulf >having only one pilot/navigator team. I am puzzled, having seen on UK >TV news programs that the planes have about 3 or 4 teams each, and are >being turned round and sent out with a fresh team as fast as they can >be refuelled, bombed up and checked over. There was even one shot of >the fresh team greeting the returning team before getting in the plane. >Maybe a bit of arithmetic: we are at about 2,000 sorties/day, with >(from memory, Mr Moderator please correct me) 600 aircraft. That means >about 4 hours per sortie average, which in turn implies a pretty fast >turnaround. Hmmm... 2000 sorties, 600 a/c... i make that 8 hours per sortie. Oh well... I looked up the latest figures I have for a/c in the Gulf region, and I make it in excess of 1300 fixed wing, essentially fast jet planes. That's excluding refuellers, helicopters, Sentries etc. So, that makes about 2 sorties per day maximum for any crew... sorry, a/c. Each plane has a fairly rigorous check before each flight. The shot of crews swapping over (a running change in RAF-speak) is somewhat unlikely. We do that, but we only ever stress our Bulldog's (don't laugh, they're lovely little planes..) to about 5-g, we only fly for about an hour maximum (if longer, there's a shutdown and full check done), and we still have to do full internal checks (and some externals). Each Tornado etc has to be refueld, re-armed, and so on, and this takes time. As their recent recruitment ad said, "drop that little lot and you'll ruin someones entire day" (refering to a missile of some kind, I think a Sidewinder). i.e they are very careful! So, the crew change was almost certainly staged for the tv crew. >From RAF documents and talking to Tornado pilots, the impression has always been that they have a dedicated a/c. Bear in mind a squadron has 24 aircrew and 12 planes... so why double up? The seats are built especially for you, i think mainly from a comfort point of view (if you're on an 8-hour sortie, you want to be able to reach the pedals properly, and to be able to see over the dashboard), but also for safety; if the seat is badly positioned, you could do yourself a great deal of damage (not as bad as the Lightening, on which the dashboard stuck out too far into the cockpit, and would automatically remove your kneecaps for you when you banged out...). The other reasons I mentioned before are trivial (about handling differences). Although noticable, a good pilot wouldn't have too much trouble. I've been trying to confirm this set-up, but I haven't been able to get a coherent answer out of anybody yet. Anyone else out there know for sure? What may be happening is that the ground crews spend, say, 2 hours checking / refitting the plane, during which the crew rest, then the *same* crew go out again. this seems unlikely tho' as fatigue on these missions is pretty high. Incidentally, soem of the F-3 crews came home for christmas, leaving their planes there, so there were actually more planes than pilots for a while. Which makes sense in case a plane goes u/s (or 'tits-up' for any Americans out there) but seems a bit of a waste of hanger space... If any of this is wrong, I'd appreciate being told. I'll try to confirm it all from this end too, and I'll post any revisions. Alex ----- Oh screw the computer, I hope it gets plug rot. -- Douglas Adams Mail to A.G.Poole@uk.ac.newcastle or n01qu@uk.ac.ncl.turing
pierce@bcstec.boeing.com (Greg Pierce) (03/06/91)
From: pierce@bcstec.boeing.com (Greg Pierce) Subject: Fast Attack Vehicle / 9th Inf Div. >Michael Edelman asked : Seems like a great recon vehicle: >Anyone familiar with this? The 9th Infantry Division took delivery of the Fast Attack Vehicle in the early to mid 1980's, and used it in Eastern Washington State at the Yakima Firing Range which is open desert terrain. Two person vehicle with a TOW mounted on the passenger side. I believe the Army has phased out the armed Fast Attack Vehicle / dune buggy in the late 1980's. There is one of these vehicle on display at the Ft. Lewis Military Museum. _______________________________________________________ Greg Pierce, Fossil from above uunet!bcstec!pierce
news@newcastle.ac.uk (03/07/91)
From: news@newcastle.ac.uk Newsgroups: sci.military Path: turing!n02ll >From: M.W.Hey@newcastle.ac.uk (William.Hey) Subject: Red Cross Organization: University of Newcastle upon Tyne, UK, NE1 7RU Message-ID: <1991Mar6.105428.2123@newcastle.ac.uk> Keywords: Red Cross Summary: Red Cross Sender: news@newcastle.ac.uk Date: Wed, 6 Mar 1991 10:54:28 GMT Recently two British soldiers were released by the Iraqis. They had not been officially listed as missing. The MoD has declined to comment, however the Red Cross has released the names of the two men. What are the Red Cross guidelines for dealing with Special Forces Personel, as It would seem most imprudent if their real identities, sould be paraded before all and sundry? Are there any other special case categories that the Red Cross observes? Cheers, Bill -----------------------+-----------------------------+ | William Hey M.W.Hey@newcastle.uk.ac | | Astrophysics : Newcastle University, England. |
tighe@hydra.convex.com (Mike Tighe) (03/13/91)
From: tighe@hydra.convex.com (Mike Tighe) Subject: Re: CINC Schwarzkopf From bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) >> From: ccmay@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Chris May) >> Who are the bodyguards in civilian clothing who accompany Schwarzkopf? >> And I heard they are using AR-15's instead of M-16's; why would this >> be? Are they from some private security consultant firm or something? > Specially trained Military Police/CID and/or > Counterintelligence/counter-terrorist agents - and they usually carry > UZI's. I think you missed the source of the question. Like Mr. May, I saw (on TV) Schwarzkoff being guarded by people that were dressed in civilian attire, and carrying AR15/M16's. I think this was most evident during the 60 Minutes interview. So, to repeat the question, were these people civilians? If not, why were they wearing civilian clothes? And if they were the people you mentioned, why weren't they carrying Uzi's as you stated?
major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) (03/14/91)
From: bcstec!shuksan!major@uunet.UU.NET (Mike Schmitt) > From: tighe@hydra.convex.com (Mike Tighe) >> Specially trained Military Police/CID and/or >> Counterintelligence/counter-terrorist agents - and they usually carry >> UZI's. > So, to repeat the question, were these people civilians? If not, why were > they wearing civilian clothes? And if they were the people you mentioned, > why weren't they carrying Uzi's as you stated? 1. They were not civilians. 2. CID and CI Special Agents wear civilian clothes as their 'day-to-day' "uniform". Therefore, they can perform their duties without the hinderance of "rank". 3. They prefered to carry the CAR-15 (I did.) mike schmitt
stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) (03/18/91)
From: stevenp@decwrl.pa.dec.com (Steven Philipson) In article <1991Feb19.033346.19290@cbnews.att.com>, news@newcastle.ac.uk writes; > [...] The servicing on a/c is very thorough, and *any* fault > will ground the plane until it is fixed. This is NOT correct. Repair of minor faults is often deferred for repair during scheduled service intervals. It would make no sense to ground a fully-capable aircraft because one cockpit light is out, or if a system is out of service that will not be used on that particular mission anyway. Pilots are provided with a list of uncorrected discrepancies before flight so that they know what is non-functional. They can refuse an aircraft though if there is something broken that they feel must be operational. Steve (the certified flying fanatic) stevenp@decwrl.dec.com