Defense against UAV's

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".

Did they not get your memo that there was no reason for them to get
involved?



--
Paul J. Adam

"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in
news:hmUfg.1658$A8.716@clgrps12:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
:[ SNIP ]
: I learned it the simple way: If you can see it, you can kill it.
:
:Well, not if "it" is capering about merrily in a No Fire Area.

I can't say I believe in No Fire Areas.

NFA's make sense if people remember what they are for. And if the
target in the NFA is truly juicy, provoke them into firing on you; you
are allowed to engage the enemy in an NFA for self-defense.

AHS



A UAV illuminating a carrier with a laser designator would be cause for
firing,IMO.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Fred J. McCall wrote:

Hell, fly close enough to it and it'd probably crash on its own just
from the turbulence.

Might even be able to drag your wingtip through the thing and cut it in
half with no noticeable degradation to your own airframe.

In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
:In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
wrote:
:What makes you think that fighter aircraft use gunnery radar?
:
:The pilots say so.

snip

:Sounds like the gunsight uses radar, Fred.

Yes, I know, Paul. I work with pilots all the time.

Then why did you doubt that fighters use radar?

Strange.

But it doesn't
HAVE to, the way the respondent was trying to insist that you HAD to
get a lock or you couldn't shoot.

You don't HAVE to hit, either.

:And then the gunnery system uses RADAR to get the range input, and after
:a few seconds adds velocity, and after that accelerations, to take the
:gunsight from Level III (locked on, range available) to Level IV (full
:system functionality)

But you can still do it better than the "WWII" accuracy claimed, even
if you're pure visual. There are tics on the HUD that you can stick
the guy between if you have a rough idea of his size and you can get
the approximate range that way.

This gets tricky with a ten-foot wingspan. Can you even dial the input
down that low?

:The range becomes particularly significant when you're shooting at a
:target only a foot in diameter (like a ScanEagle seen from behind) - but
:your ammunition drops more than twenty feet over a thousand yards.

With something that small you'd be a lot closer.

If you're a lot closer, you're risking FOD when you hit him, he breaks
up and you suck some debris down your intake.

Or you don't pull up in time and risk wearing the UAV as a decorative
nose ornament - effective as a kill but not good in the
cost-effectiveness stakes. (Repair bill for the fighter is going to be
significant after hitting a 40lb drone)

If you didn't
realize what it was you'd probably miss on the first pass (you'd be a
lot closer than you thought you were and would shoot over him).

Or into him - again, that's a pretty hefty birdstrike.

epends on the size of the target and how long you have to shoot at it,
:doesn't it?

It's a slow UAV. Where's it going to go other than down, Paul? You
have all the time in the world to shoot it.

What's your overtake speed, Fred? How long do you have on each pass,
considering you've got to get a lot closer than normal and still not hit
the thing? The actual firing time available is not large.

:Unfortunately we're not talking "most modern aircraft" when discussing
:such small targets.

Really?

Yes, really, the targets are a fraction of the size of "most modern
aircraft" which seriously complicates things.

:Assume the radar locks on, or that Dick Dastardly in the fighter is such
:an expert marksman he can hit by eye every time. A ScanEagle UAV is
:about a foot in diameter, seen from astern: a F-16's gun puts 80% of its
:rounds in a six-mil circle. At 1,500 feet, the target occupies only 1%
f that circle.

And you'd probably check fire until you got closer. It's not like it
can run away.

Fighter doing 200kt, drone doing ~50kt, that gives you a 250fps overtake
- six seconds from 1,500 feet to the target coming through the
windscreen.

:Mathematically, if you fired an 86-round burst you would have a 50%
:chance of hitting it. To get the chance of a hit up to 95% takes you to
:a burst of 372 rounds, still assuming that the target remains in the
:six-mil circle throughout...

You're leaving out a factor. The rounds are not evenly distributed
through that six mil circle. They're still concentrated toward the
center. You need to work it as a Gaussian rather than a random spray
throughout the circle.

You assume, then, that the MPI will start - and remain - precisely
centred on the target throughout, despite a lack of any reliable range
input other than "best guess" and, up close, a significant parallax
error between the HUD cross and the gun bore?

That's one hell of a pilot you're assuming.



--
Paul J. Adam

"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

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 the first time you've made
statements that proved to be bold, sweeping and wrong.

"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.

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).


--
Paul J. Adam

"Jim Yanik" wrote in message
.. .
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote in
news:hmUfg.1658$A8.716@clgrps12:

"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
...
"Arved Sandstrom" wrote:

:"Fred J. McCall" wrote in message
.. .
:[ SNIP ]
: I learned it the simple way: If you can see it, you can kill it.
:
:Well, not if "it" is capering about merrily in a No Fire Area.

I can't say I believe in No Fire Areas.

NFA's make sense if people remember what they are for. And if the
target in the NFA is truly juicy, provoke them into firing on you; you
are allowed to engage the enemy in an NFA for self-defense.

A UAV illuminating a carrier with a laser designator would be cause for
firing,IMO.

Surely yes; the key word being "designator". In any case, I have no idea how
the USN manages its battlespace, or what restrictive and permissive fire
support coordination measures it uses at sea (on land for NSFS it's just the
same measures that the land forces use). In principle I guess a navy could
have at-sea no fire areas, or the equivalent thereof - something like "don't
blast oil rigs", for example, or less restrictive coordination areas, like
"get permission before engaging targets in the Strait of Gibraltar".

AHS

The USN has refuted claims that an Iranian UAV buzzed a U.S. Aircraft
Carrier. See:


http://navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1843922.php

On Fri, 2 Jun 2006 18:11:12 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:

Or you don't pull up in time and risk wearing the UAV as a decorative
nose ornament - effective as a kill but not good in the
cost-effectiveness stakes. (Repair bill for the fighter is going to be
significant after hitting a 40lb drone)

The occasional new nose job on a fighter, or a new 4.5 billion dollar aircraft
carrier. Damn, that's a tough call, guess we should issue a 50 cent piece to
the CV captains so they can flip for it.

"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.

You see, I suspect that like most arrogant ******s, you simply don't
realize quite what an absolute ass you frequently are.

:it's not the first time you've made
:statements that proved to be bold, sweeping and wrong.

Talk about irony....

Just don't get your nose out of joint when I slap you back, boyo.

:"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.

Gee, not so wrong after all, I guess.

Now go read the story about the ostensible Iranian UAV. The claim is
that after 25 minutes the carrier 'scrambled' 2 helicopters and 4
fighter jets.

That may sound reasonable to you, but I live on planet Earth.

: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?

Yeah, that could happen!

--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn