"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

:In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
:"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
:
::In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
::"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
:::
:::Out of interest, what are the USN SH-60 detachment doing at Neptune
:::Warrior 063 this month? They've come to work with our Lynxes on
:::Objective 6.2.2... "low slow fliers".
::
::Why, they're making you look bad, of course.
::
::id they not get your memo that there was no reason for them to get
:::involved?
::
::No need to get shirty, Paul. This sort of remark is what gets your
::feelings bruised when I bat it back at you in return.
::
::No need to get defensive, Fred -
:
:It's not defensive to note you making one of your usual ****ty little
:comments, Paul. It's merely an attempt to maintain comity.
:
on't bother, Fred.

Fine. Just don't go all into a snit when you get slapped.

:You see, I suspect that like most arrogant ******s, you simply don't
:realize quite what an absolute ass you frequently are.
:
:"Arrogand ******", in this case as so often otherwise, being anyone who
:catches Fred getting it loudly wrong yet again.

Wrong again, Paul. Jesus, you NEVER figure it out, do you?

::it's not the first time you've made
::statements that proved to be bold, sweeping and wrong.
:
:Talk about irony....
:
:No, thamks, I prefer goldy or silvery - higher resale values.
:
::"Hint: Helicopters aren't used as interceptors." - unless the contact
::is low and slow, like many types of UAV, in which case helicopters *are*
::used as interceptors.
:
:No, they aren't. Interceptors carry WEAPONS, Paul.
:
:Helicopters carry WEAPONS, Fred.

Not air-to-air weapons, Paul. Air-to-air interceptors carry
air-to-air weapons so that they can, well, INTERCEPT and not just
stand by and watch.

:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GAU-16_.50_MG.jpg is a nice example
f the US version:
:
:http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/...MediaFile.6900 shows a Lynx
:with two Skua and a M3M.

Yes, another fine set of air-to-air weapons. NOT.

:Gee, not so wrong after all, I guess.
:
:Right - naval helicopters don't do aerial intercepts, except that they
:do. They're unarmed apart from their weapons. What is Fred going to
:amaze us with next?

What amazes me is how poorly some of you ENGLISH seem to be at
comprehension of your mother tongue.

::What air-to-air weapons do you think a USN SH-60 carries?
::
::For this, the optional door gun should suffice nicely (that's what the
::Lynx would be using, after all).
:
:So you think a guy standing in a doorway over iron sights using a
:weapon never intended to fire at anything but the ground is going to
:hit one of these things but a purpose built machine designed to take
:on air targets is going to be unable to?
:
:Certainly could, Fred. See, instead of coming in at ~150 knots of
vertake, trying to hit a one-foot-diameter target with a fixed gun
:whose sights aren't registering the target properly, in a helicopter you
:can pull up alongside for a leisurely shoot at zero relative velocity,
:with no rush and no hurry.

And a worse weapon used in a non-intended way. As usual, Paul hears
and sees what he want to and disregards the rest.

:Now, you may claim US machine gunners may be unable to hit a four-foot
:by one foot target (ScanEagle from the side) from, say, fifty metres
let's give them a decent standoff distance in case the UAV does
:something unpredictable) but if you're right then the RN can give them
:some lessons. (Personally I think you're wrong yet again, but we'll
:see).

Oh, I see. Now we're to the usual Paul Adam game where you just make
**** up and then pretend that I've said it.

Yeah, about what's expected from you, Paul.

Oh, and who told you that the MGs only had iron sights? Or that they
:were ineffective for anything other than ground fire?)

Oh, and who told you they had something other than 'iron sights' (look
at your own picture - what do YOU see him using for a sight).

Where did I say anything remotely resembling that "they were
ineffective for anything other than ground fire"?

Don't look now, but you're already starting to make **** up and then
lie about my having said it again, Paul.

:You've got an extraordinarily ill-tempered manner of saying "I was
:wrong".

And you've got an entirely ordinary way of lying about what I've said.
I categorize it as 'ordinary' based on your past history of similar
behaviour.

It's only expected from you by now, Paul.

--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates