miket@brspyr1.brs.com (Mike Trout) (06/30/89)
From: miket@brspyr1.brs.com (Mike Trout) Subject: F-106 Delta Dart In sci.military Digest V2 #34 "Nicholas C. Hester" <IA80024%MAINE.BITNET%CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> writes: > I guess since fighters can't have air to ground capabilities that means the US > doesn't have any TRUE fighters in it's arsenal. Unless we have any Delta Darts > running around... The last group of F-106A and F-106B Delta Darts was retired recently; sometime last year, I think. If I remember correctly, one final squadron was based at Griffiss AFB, and were replaced with F-15s. Nine USAF and ANG squadrons were using Darts as late as mid-1984. Another interesting airplane type passes into history. I suppose this also means that the hilarious AIM-2A Genie "Blivet" missile has also been retired, although I'm not sure if this wasn't quietly done anyway some time ago. -------------------------- Subject: History of Grenades In sci.military Digest V2 #34 Bill Thacker (military@att.att.com) writes: > I'm hoping some readers can fill in some gaps in the following facts. > [ ... ] > At this point, special troops, Grenadiers, were trained in the use > of grenades. However, by the 1800's, that term had come to mean instead > an elite unit of infantry (according to _Wilhelm's Military Dictionary > and Gazeteer_ of 1881, "the first company of every battalion on foot.") My understanding of how this semantical change occurred is based on the type of men who originally threw grenades. As the "hand bombs" of those days were heavy and unwieldy, unreliable, and just as dangerous to the throwers as to the intended victims, it took a special kind of maniac to be willing to expose yourself to close-range fire in order to hurl a spurious weapon at the enemy. Such men tended to be bigger, stronger, more aggressive, and braver than the average soldier, and therefore soon began to develop a highly effective esprit de corps. As firearms became more effective and grenades did not, the grenades generally disappeared but the high-quality grenadiers continued on as elite infantry. > I'm guessing that the term "grenadier" is French, Yes, it is. -------------------------- Subject: Navy money troubles In sci.military Digest V2 #34 dlj@cbnewsh.ATT.COM (david.l.jacobowitz) writes: > How is it that there never seems to be enough money for > Navy (i.e. Tomcat) aircraft improvements, while the Air > Force has had money for the F-15 models A,B,C,and D; > the F-16 models A,B,C; the F-111A,C,D,E,F,...ad infinitim. > Is it just me or does the Navy always seem to have more > of a problem than the Air Force persuading Congress to > provide dollars for aircraft improvement? Historically, the various services continually battle for their "fair" portion of the pie. Air forces usually have a slight edge, as their service is sexier, more glamorous, and seems to have more exciting ways of displaying their wares (air shows, etc.). This is true for ALL nations, not just the USA, although the American public's near-sexual attitude about air power doesn't help the gross pro-air imbalance. Note that in the Pacific theater in WWII, the amount spent per year per US Army soldier was $4,300, of which a staggering $1,429 went for air power (the next highest categories were $643 for ordnance and $571 for food)! And the percentages sucked up by air are much higher today, resulting in even less bang for the buck. Another problem is how the US Navy is forced (or, more properly, forces itself) to maintain both a navy AND and air force. Since air power is the most expensive weapon extant, the US Navy is quite handicapped in its ability to pay for everything it wants. Of course, the USN also has a bad habit of seeking the most expensive possible solution to everything--supercarriers and SuperTomcats being good examples. It's ironic that, generally speaking, the USN has in recent years (Reagan era) received roughly the same yearly budget as the USAF. Yet the USN often spends slightly more money on aircraft than on ships. The USN's overall purpose has been forgotten in a frantic effort to keep over a dozen carriers well-supplied with some of the best (and most expensive) warplanes in the world. Given the possibilities of changing naval tactics that may be increasing the vulnerability of supercarriers, this may be inevitable. But it's a dead-end street that ends up with the USN trying to do everything at once and, therefore, ultimately doing nothing. > Those Tomcat upgrades are essential in view of > 1) the Billion Dollar Carriers they are supposed to be > protecting (now from those super-maneuverable Mig-29s > and Su-27s with their thrust/weight ratios greater than unity), I would dispute this being "essential." Crew quality is to air combat as pitching is to baseball, i.e. 80% of the game. US aircrews, both USAF and USN, are by far the world's finest (with the possible exception of Israelis, West and East Germans, and perhaps some RAF units). Exceptions to this rule abound, but US pilots flying F-89 Scorpions could probably make mincemeat of most Soviet/Eastbloc/Arab pilots flying MiG-29s. Yes, our supercarriers are starting to look "nakeder" all the time, and the latest MiG-29/Su-27/MiG-31 generation is indeed a superb group of airplanes. But the world's greatest weapons wielded by mediocre personnel will always lose to mediocre weapons wielded by the world's greatest personnel. The solution to supercarrier vulnerability does not, I hope, lie with still another quantum leap in aircraft spending. > and 2) the highly trained pilots whose lives depend on their > engines being reliable. > Pilots have been killed because Congress hasn't provided funds to > replace those TF-30s with more reliable (and smokeless) engines. A separate, and quite possibly valid, issue. Could you provide data on how many F-14s have crashed due to engine failure caused by TF-30 unreliability? A certain number of accidents and deaths is inevitable with all weaponry, and the numbers generally rise with increasing weapon complexity and potency. We COULD produce weapons with 99.9999% crew safety records, but we would bankrupt the nation in the process. > There also doesn't seem to be enough money for the Northrop TCS > (Television Camera System). > [...description deleted...] > How can this *not* be installed in the F-14? See above. The USN is simply trying to do too much, and there isn't enough money for everything. By definition, the role they established for themselves back in the late 1940s is coming to haunt them. I would agree that TCS is something that should be funded. But I would also suggest obtaining some of that money by killing some SuperTomcats, supercarriers, and superTridents, and you can just imagine the howls of protest that would raise. The admirals in charge of the procurement programs for the "supers" have more clout than the admiral in charge of TCS procurement. Any active procurement admiral who suggests cutting one program in order to fund another will find himself in charge of the Aleutian garbage scow fleet. -- NSA food: Iran sells Nicaraguan drugs to White House through CIA, SOD & NRO. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110 (518) 783-1161 "God forbid we should ever be 20 years without...a rebellion." Thomas Jefferson
bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart) (07/05/89)
From: vrdxhq!vrdxhq.verdix.com!bsmart@uunet.UU.NET (Bob Smart) In article <7878@cbnews.ATT.COM>, miket@brspyr1.brs.com (Mike Trout) writes: > > history. I suppose this also means that the hilarious AIM-2A Genie "Blivet" > missile has also been retired, although I'm not sure if this wasn't quietly > done anyway some time ago. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ The AIR-2 Genie was retired a while ago. notice the difference AIM stands for Air intercept Missle, AIR is Air intercept Rocket. The difference is guidance, the missle has it the rocket doesn't. The AIR-2 was a purely ballistic weapon. the launch platform computed the trajectory and the target path and fired when appropriate, basically a big bullet. It was designed to wipe out bomber formations By the way it was a nuke ( I can't remember the size) In William Tell compettion ( the air defence competition) the accuaracy was surprisingly good. Bob Smart (bsmart@verdix.com)