[sci.military] no subject

military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (08/22/90)

From: Eric Price <sagpd1!eprice>

	Dear Netlanders,

    With all the talk about the possible use of chemical wepons
    in the Persian Gulf, can any one out there give me any information
    on germ warfare. The B in CBR, ie what sort of nasty sh*t do
    we, the USA, or any one else have, that is hi-tech type biological
    weapons, not your everyday Anthrax type stuff.

					Many Thanks

					eric aka egp || eprice@sagpd1

					Formerly of Boscomantico and CSC 1/509

/* airborne infantry will always be queen of the battle	*/

military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (09/02/90)

From: sun!sunburn.West.Sun.COM!gtx!qip!john (John Moore)

Newsgroups: sci.military
Subject: Atomic Cannon

G_AHRENDT@VAXA.CC.UWA.OZ.AU (Gunter Ahrendt) writes:
]I was wondering if anyone might be able to give me some (any!) information or 
]references to the Atomic Cannon the US Army was testing in the Desert in the 
]late 40's or early 50's?
]
]I think it only ever fired one shot ;)
]
]All i've seen was some footage of this HUGE cannon with a enormous amount of
]recoil blast it's projectile into the sky and seconds later a mushroom in the
]distance... 
]
I can't give you much in technical details. However, my father worked
on testing around that time, and he said the general scientific opinion
was that the device was ridiculous. Apparently it was a large, rifled
artillery piece that had high accuracy. THe scientific opinion was
that it was a waste, because the yield was high enough that they
didn't need accuracy (and the attendent complications). Anything that
could hurl a projectile in the general direction would have been sufficient.

military@cbnews.att.com (William B. Thacker) (09/02/90)

From: sun!sunburn.West.Sun.COM!gtx!qip!john (John Moore)
Subject: Re: Anti-radiation missle capabilities?
Keith Lewis (lewis@saint) writes:
]
]In article <1990Aug21.024249.220@cbnews.att.com> Will Martin <wmartin@STL-06SIMA.ARMY.MIL> writes:
]
]>Can anti-radiation missiles, which usually are used against radars operating
]>in the UHF or microwave range, be used against targets emitting lower
]>frequencies, like HF radio? Could such a missile be used to home in on the
]>antenna of a transmitter being used to jam shortwave broadcast reception,
]>for example?
]
]In order to home in on a transmitting antenna, the missile needs a recieving
]antenna (or three) of its own.  The size of a given design of antenna
]is some fraction (preferably 1) of the wavelength (inversly proportional
]to the frequency) of the broadcast you want to home in on.  Radar is
]measured in centimeters.  HF is measured in meters.  So for *Optimal*
]design, you would make the antennae a number of meters in size.
]
]Whether you really need this optimization I can't say.  There may be other
]designs that are effective, or maybe the radar antennae will work *well enough*
]to take out a powerful transmitting antenna.

You definitely don't. Consider a hand-held transistor radio. It is
quite sensitive, but has an antenna about .5"x.5"x4". It is also
extremely directional. You can verify this by orienting the
long part of the loopstick antenna towards a radio station. When it
is precisely lined up, the station will fade out.

Likewise, a Loran C receiver operates on 100 KHz, which is a wavelength
of 3000 meters. I have seen them with small vertical antennas.

Small aperture antennas are not very directional, except where symmetry
causes a cancellation effect. Hence, a seeker head using this would
be a bit tricky - probably requiring moving parts, and would be 
sensitive to multiple signal sources.  However, for pulsed radars, 
it should be possible to discriminate between the multiple sources.

John Moore   asuvax!anasaz!john