"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

:In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
:"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
::In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
::"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
:::Sorry you can't think of a reason, but that doesn't mean there isn't
::ne.
:::
:::A hint - destroyers max out around thirty knots, a Lynx can wind up to
:::~170 knots. Which is more suitable to investigate something like a
:::Cessna or a Robin that cruises at ~70kt and stalls at forty?
::
::An F/A-18. But you need a carrier for those.
::
::See? There *is* a reason after all!
:
:Hence my mentioning NAVIES (and how forces with only destroyers don't
:really qualify as same). :-)
:
: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.

What air-to-air weapons do you think a USN SH-60 carries?

[They've actually modified the radars to allow air intercept
operations, but I still don't think they have anything much to shoot
with. They're strictly recce in that regard.]

--
"Before you embark on a journey of revenge dig two graves."

-- Confucius