Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!att!cbnews!military From: baldwin@cad.usna.mil (J.D. Baldwin) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Radioactive stuff on a MiG Message-ID: <10331@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 18 Oct 89 02:49:59 GMT Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Canoe U. Lines: 28 Approved: military@att.att.com From: "J.D. Baldwin" In article <10272@cbnews.ATT.COM> henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: >If you look at a head-on photo of an A-6 Intruder, >for example, you'll see a trefoil on its nose. (At least, some of them >are/were marked this way.) The "Intruders" that you have seen marked this way are actually EA-6B Prowlers. That is why only "some" of the "Intruders" were marked that way. The EA-6B of course, looks nearly identical to the A-6[x] from that angle. I guess that's one reason they mark it that way. I don't know whether an EA-6A Intruder has the trefoil or not. I don't think so. That's getting a little obscure, though . . . Interestingly enough, the two aircraft (Intruder/Prowler) have similar radars in the nose. They aren't identical, but there's nothing super- powerful or mystic about the AN/APQ-129 in the EA-6B's nose. The extra "radiation" hazard, if any, is from the jamming pods that the Prowler carries. And this, of course, is no hazard at all on the ground (unless the bird is facing into Hurricane Hugo to power its pods' turbines). -- >From the catapult of: |+| "If anyone disagrees with anything I _, J. D. Baldwin, Comp Sci Dept |+| say, I am quite prepared not only to __||____..}-> US Naval Academy |+| retract it, but also to deny under \ / baldwin@cad.usna.navy.mil |+| oath that I ever said it." --T. Lehrer ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~