In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
: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.

And your source for saying that a M3M-equipped Lynx can't engage a light
aircraft or UAV is...?

Be detailed and specific, please, you're arguing against current
doctrine.

: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.

Yes, Fred, I am. Were you too busy ranting, to notice where I work these
days?

:What do I not "figure out" apart from your curious cocktail of arrogance
:and ignorance?

Try reading the words, Paul.

I did. You say that helicopters can't intercept slow low-flying air
contacts and have no capability against them.

I say they can, and they do. The USN agrees enough that it's sending a
detachment to participate in that phase of NEPTUNE WARRIOR 063.

I fear one of us must be mistaken, but I doubt it's me - I know who's
writing the exercise orders, and I doubt you do.

: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?

So helicopters actually *do* carry weapons usable against some air
targets, then?

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.

And nobody - at least not in the RN - is suggesting it's an effective
response to fast jets.

But it'll do a good job on light aircraft and most UAVs - the "slow low
flyer" category that, oddly enough, the fast-moving pointy-nose crowd
have some difficulty with.

:So, a .50" machine gun can't shoot down a UAV?

I said that where, Paul?

"Intercept' implies they do something other than watch once they get out
there." writes Fred.

So, a helicopter with a .50" door gun can only watch the UAV, according
to Fred.

Not a _universally_ shared opinion, but there you go.

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.

Yes, yes, Fred, of course. Just keep on babbling insults and hope nobody
notices that you're digging yourself deeper all the time.

You claimed it's impossible for helicopters to respond to UAVs or other
slow low fliers, I say it is. Apparently that makes me a liar and
exercises testing the practice prove... that you're right and I'm lying.

Just keep on screaming "Liar!" Everyone believes you. You're completely
credible, being so famous for your stability, politeness and reason.

: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.

"Intercept' implies they do something other than watch once they get out
there." writes Fred. Where, in that statement, is any acceptance of a
capability against the slow low flyer?

Is Fred grossly dishonest, or just terribly confused?

: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.

So, is the USN sending helicopters to exercise against "slow low fliers"
proof that it's impossible?

I'm curious. You insist it can't be done and it's not possible and the
aircraft have no capability... and yet on every detail you turn out to
be wrong.

: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.

No, I doubt that, you'd be almost unbeatable in that regard.

I hope this makes you proud.

:"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.

Oh, so now it *is* what you said, but you didn't actually *mean* it.

Did you say it or not? Well, obviously you did.

So, can a USN doorgunner hit a co-velocity man-size target at fifty
yards - or not?

: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).

Stop shifting the argument, Fred. You claimed it was impossible to hit
the target in those circumstances. Now, you're trying to claim it's "too
dangerous" to get close to it in case it does something unpredictable
(although you have no problem with fast jets making point-blank passes
and assuming the target will plod along on its base course throughout).

If it's that dangerous for a helicopter to close, why is it any safer
for a fast jet to make repeated slow passes at point-blank range?

:The Lynx Tactical Development desk officer. (He works two legs down from
:my office.)

And US carriers have how many such aircraft on board?

None - perhaps this is why they're coming, to see how the RN manage and
check whether there's anything the SH-60 community might want to borrow
from us. Ain't teamwork great? Isn't it useful that not everyone in the
US is as blinkered, arrogant, ignorant and dishonest as Fred?

[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.]

Remember the origin of the discussion, Fred - "helicopters don't
intercept air targets".

They can, they do, I have no idea at all whether they did in the Gulf
recently and the USN participation in NW063 predates the incident.

: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.

In other words, Fred is upset at - yet again - making a bold claim
that's turned out to be thoroughly wrong.


:"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.

But then you may not be given the choice, and then what do you do? Panic
and die because there's no fast-mover air available? Or consider an
organic response?


Your mileage apparently varies, but then I'm not impressed
with your analytical skills to this point anyway.

Well, Fred, I have to say... sob that... sniffle I'm really, really
*hurt* by that.

I mean, I just *live* for your good opinion. I don't care what my
colleagues and friends think of my professional skills, the good regard
of my oppos at Fleet matter *nothing* to me, respect from the Navy I set
at naught, compared to keeping your respect and esteem.



Get over yourself, you clueless twit, this is only Usenet. You've
joyfully filed yourself in with erudite idiots like Tiglath - fond of
rhetorical flourishes and bold statements, boasting of deep knowledge,
yet never once able to just say "really? Damn! Didn't know that! Live
and learn!" when their sweeping statements turn out to be incorrect.

You picked your home and your peers, be happy with the results.

: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.

Like, shooting at small slow ~100kt prop-driven aircraft? Those were the
targets for the TuF.

You, on the other
hand, would still be trying to lie about what is said to you.

The UAVs of concern are small 100kt prop jobs.

Poor Fred, so fixated on being right, so determined that he can never be
wrong...

: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.

Yes, yes, yes, "lie" drops so swift and easy from your lips, doesn't it?

Where, exactly, have I lied, Fred?

You claimed helicopters can't intercept slow low flying air contacts. I
pointed out that they can and they do.

You claimed that helicopters can't carry weapons effective against slow
low-flying air contacts. I pointed out that they can and they do.

And so it goes... every time Fred makes a claim that turns out to be
bold, sweeping and wrong, his reaction is to escalate the pitch of his
"liar!" whine. He never learns, he never reconsiders, he can only accuse
anyone who disagrees with him of lying.

: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.

Or, quoting what you said - which apparently becomes a lie because it
was "my sort of rhetorical question". Poor Fred can't even bear to take
responsibility for his own words any more.

In
civilized countries this deliberate promulgation of falsehood is
referred to as a 'lie' and those who engage in it as 'liars'.

In civilised countries, calling a man a liar used to have a simple
resolution.

Fort Widley courtyard, 0700 on the Saturday of your choice (if I refuse
more than three then you win by default). Quiet, open, easy to find and
if bothered we can claim to be re-enactionists practising, plus it's got
a very nice view. Either bring your own sword or I can lend you one.
Third blood wins, since otherwise the winner would have too many
problems with the local constabulary.

Or should I go the modern route, and sue you for libel? I'd need to see
if there's a bloodsucker^H^H^H^H solicitor willing to take the case on a
no-win-no-fee basis, of course, but I fear you effortlessly meet the
test for 'strict libel' under UK law.


Or do I laugh at the sad little man whose endless, predictable reaction
to being caught in error is to shriek "Liar! Liar! Liar!" until he
scurries to the comfort of his killfile?

Which would you prefer, Fred? You love to scream "liar", how do you want
your chance to prove it?

: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.

In what way have I lied about you, Fred?

You seem reckless, even joyous, in your endless dishonesty about me, but
what have I said about you that is false?

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.

Don't need to, Fred, I just have to quote your own words. When I do, you
claim you "didn't mean it" or "it was rhetorical", of course, but I
don't need to make **** up to make you look petulant and foolish - you
do that all by yourself.

All it says, however, is that you're a liar.

Of course I am. Will you back those words with a sword in your hand?
Will I see you in court? Or will you just hide in your killfile?

Turkey trots to water, the world wonders.

--
Paul J. Adam