"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
:In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
:"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
::"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?
:
:So, Fred, do naval helicopters intercept some types of aerial category
r not?
No, they do not. 'Intercept' implies they do something other than
watch once they get out there.
:You claimed not and said the idea was ludicrous: I'm seariding in an
:exercise where they plan to do just that.
Yes, of course you are.
:What do I not "figure out" apart from your curious cocktail of arrogance
:and ignorance?
Try reading the words, 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.
:
:So a .50" machine gun isn't able to engage aircraft, Fred?
I said that where, Paul? Just making more **** up and lying, as is
your usual wont.
Hint: I can throw rocks, too, but that doesn't make a rock an
air-to-air weapon. That's determined by what the weapon was designed
for and intended to do. If the MG on an SH-60 was intended as an
air-to-air weapon it wouldn't look as it does in the picture at the
URL below.
::
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.
:
:So, a .50" machine gun can't shoot down a UAV?
I said that where, Paul?
I know it's hard for you, but do try to read the actual words instead
of making **** up you want me to have said and then pretending that
your delusions are reality.
:Curious claim. Do you have any evidence for that, or is this another of
:your bold baseless assertions?
Yes, it is a curious claim. The most curious thing about it is that
you're lying about my having said it.
You that bored out at sea, Paul?
::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.
:
:Nice evasion. Can you explain why your own navy is exercising at a task
:you've claim is impossible, implausible and without reason?
Go back and read the words, Paul. No evasion required.
::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.
:
:Some of us are less closed-minded and more adaptable than you, Fred.
No doubt. Some of you are also stupider and more up your own
backsides than I am.
:As usual, Paul hears
:and sees what he want to and disregards the rest.
:
:I'm just participating in the exercise, what do I know?
Not much, apparently.
::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.
:
:"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" writes Fred.
It's your sort of rhetorical question, Paul. You should be able to
recognize the tactic.
:What part of that is expressing confidence in the gunner's ability to
:hit a man-size target at fifty metres' range?
Let me get this straight. You want to form up on an unmanned vehicle
that is ostensibly hostile and fly stupidly along 50 meters out in a
helicopter. And what do you do when it turns into you (other than
**** yourself and die in a ball of flames, I mean).
:Yeah, about what's expected from you, Paul.
:
:Quite so - more Fred foolishness exposed.
You mean more Paul lies about what he claims happened.
:What are you going to insist is impossible next?
You telling the truth. Experience seems to teach that that is at
least pretty unlikely, if not outright impossible.
:
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).
:
:The Lynx Tactical Development desk officer. (He works two legs down from
:my office.)
And US carriers have how many such aircraft on board?
[Remember the origin of the discussion, Paul - the ridiculous idea
that a US carrier "scrambled 2 helicopters and 4 jet fighters" to
engage an Iranian UAV.]
:One of the trials objectives is testing the newly-procured thermal
:sights for the M3M guns in a variety of roles; the guns were quickly
:acquired as a UOR for Telic, and having proved highly effective the
:improved sights were procured in slower time.
Yes, well, as I said, you lot probably don't have any choice, not
having a real navy with real airplanes to do this job.
:Where did I say anything remotely resembling that "they were
:ineffective for anything other than ground fire"?
:
:"a weapon never intended to fire at anything but the ground" and "And a
:worse weapon used in a non-intended way" would certainly seem to
:qualify.
Only to those unable to read. Given the choice, Paul, I'd rather
engage an air target with a 20mm cannon intended for engaging air
targets. Your mileage apparently varies, but then I'm not impressed
with your analytical skills to this point anyway.
:But then Fred seems to forget that the heavy machine gun started out
:with the German 13mm TuF, or "Tank und Flieger", which was designed with
:the role of shooting at ~100kt air targets in mind.
And if this was the beginning of the 20th century and we were using
such a purpose-designed thing for the purpose for which it was
intended I would probably be using different words. You, on the other
hand, would still be trying to lie about what is said to you.
:Don't look now, but you're already starting to make **** up and then
:lie about my having said it again, Paul.
:
:Sorry, Fred, but whining about being caught out does you no good.
And apparently pointing out to you that you're lying yet again also
does no good, as you just keep doing it.
::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.
:
:Meaning, Fred is hoping that if he flings enough **** he can hide his
:tracks.
No, meaning that you're making **** up and then claiming I said it. In
civilized countries this deliberate promulgation of falsehood is
referred to as a 'lie' and those who engage in it as 'liars'.
Things are apparently different where you are.
:It's only expected from you by now, Paul.
:
on't like being proved wrong, do you?
No, I don't like being lied about. If you want to make **** up and
then pretend that I've said it so that you can 'prove it wrong', why,
you just go right ahead.
All it says, however, is that you're a liar.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates