Defense against UAV's

http://www.pcworld.ca/news/article/9...b69d0d/pg0.htm

This is an article on the $100 laptop. Note the CONNECTIVITY details.
The $100 features true peer to peer. Is this relevant to UAV defense. I
believe this, and indeed COTS in general to be.

A UAV with a LMG - set a thief to catch a thief! will need this degree
of connectivity. I have looked at connectivity from the standpoint of
the software designer, who does not have to worry about where a thread
is executed. If some links are jammed it will go through other links.

A UAV needs things that a laptop does not, such as an autopilot.
However it does not need an inferface as it is relying on the user
interfaces at base.

Remember - The $100 is NOT science fiction. It is very much a near term
project.

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

:In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
:"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
::In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
::And your source for saying that a M3M-equipped Lynx can't engage a light
::aircraft or UAV is...?
:
:Gee, where did I say that, Paul? Making up yet more lies?
:
:So, we are that a helicopter can effectively engage a low slow flier,
:correct?

For some definition of "effectively", "low" and "slow".

I find it amusing how you want to change the words back and forth when
you try your two-value switch games, Paul.

::Be detailed and specific, please, you're arguing against current
::doctrine.
:
:Follow along with me now. We're talking about NAVIES. You know.
:Folks who have something besides destroyers.
:
:Funny, I could have sworn that a couple of Her Majesty's large grey war
:canoes were aircraft carriers. In fact, Illustrious is out on OP AQUILA
:at the moment with a deckful of Harriers.
:
:http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.5330

We don't call ships that small that carry a bare handful of aircraft
"aircraft carriers", Paul.

:Poor Fred - so much certainty, so few facts...

Poor Paul - they USED to have a real navy...

::I did. You say that helicopters can't intercept slow low-flying air
::contacts and have no capability against them.
:
:Ok, now try reading the words and not lying about what they say.
:
:So in fact you agree that helicopters *can* intercept slow low fliers
:and *do* have capability against them?

Of course. So can a swimmer with a handgun.

:What were you complaining about, then?

Lately? You lying, as usual.

:I said "we don't use them as interceptors", which means something
:somewhat different. The noun 'interceptor' means just a bit more than
:"something that is used to intercept" when talking about aircraft.
:
:Really, Fred? A quick perusal of Joint Publication 1-02 (Department of
efense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms) gives us
:"interceptor" as "A manned aircraft utilized for identification and/or
:engagement of airborne objects."
:
:Sounds like it fits the bill.

Now look around some more and you'll find other definitions where it
doesn't fit the bill.

Quite handy to pick and choose, Paul. Good luck looking up 'aircraft'
in there.

::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.
:
:I fear one of us is a congenital liar. It's most assuredly you.
:
:Yes, Fred, if you scream "liar" loud enough then you might eventually
:convince yourself.

Poor Paul. This is really all you can do, isn't it?

::"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.
:
:So, Paul thinks that 'interceptor' means 'helicopter'. How low the
:Empire has sunk when that's true.
:
:If you send a helicopter to investigate a low slow flyer, is it not "a
:manned aircraft utilized for identification and/or engagement of
:airborne objects"? According to the US DoD, that's an 'interceptor', but
:Fred doesn't believe them.

No, according to one document (which rather neglects to define
'aircraft', so you can see how complete THAT is) it is. Now break out
your handy dandy desktop dictionary and look up 'interceptor', Paul.

Interceptors come with 'F' and 'Y' designators. Those aren't
helicopters.

::"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?
:
:I'll simply note that Paul has to go find things out of context to
:insert rather than simply leaving the original quotes and context in.
:
:Fred can't cope with his own words, it seems.

While Paul 'copes' too well, switching words back and forth in a 'two
value' game just to pick a fight.

:Is Paul a liar, or ... well, that seems to be the only possibility,
:doesn't it?
:
:Or, perhaps, Paul is right and Fred has to keep screaming "liar!"
:because he's been caught - yet again - making grossly incorrect
:statements.

The two aren't even connected, Paul. Go count the number of times
you've claimed I said something I never said. Lies, Paul. It's what
you do.

Frankly, it's pretty sad that all people like you and Tiglet can do to
validate your own existence is to go about picking these kinds of
fights.

::So, is the USN sending helicopters to exercise against "slow low fliers"
:roof 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.
:
:Yes, you ARE curious. Most curious is why you are so driven to
:misconstrue and lie. Is your life THAT dull again these days, Paul?
:
:Amusing evasion, Fred. How does the USN HELDET participation in NW063's
:"slow low-flyer" phase prove me a liar?

Where did I ever "insist it can't be done and it's not possible and
the aircraft have no capability", Paul.

All I did was ask a few simple questions. All you did was lie about
what I said.

::Ain't teamwork great? Isn't it useful that not everyone in the
::US is as blinkered, arrogant, ignorant and dishonest as Fred?
:
:Isn't it useful that not everyone in the UK is the congenital liar
:that Paul is?
:
:When Fred calls you a liar, rejoice - it means he's really out on his
:facts and knows it.

No, it means you are a liar who is making up things and then treating
them as reality.

Lithium, Paul ... get some.

::Remember the origin of the discussion, Fred - "helicopters don't
::intercept air targets".
:
:Put it back in context again, Paul. What you claim as "the origin of
:the discussion" isn't. Of course, why would anyone be surprised that
:you'd lie about that?
:
:Answer the question, Fred - can helicopters intercept slow low-flyers or
:not?
:
:Oh, wait, you did. Have you changed your mind?

No, Paul. I haven't changed my mind and I'm pretty unlikely to do so
in the face of a pathetic little ****** like you.

I'd ask you what YOU think my answer is, but I'm sure you'll get it
wrong.

::Like, shooting at small slow ~100kt prop-driven aircraft? Those were the
::targets for the TuF.
:
:So your logic runs that since there was once a gun intended for this
:that all guns from then on are?
:
:No, Fred - what were you saying about liars?

So what is your point in dredging up the factoid that there have been
machine guns intended for "shooting at small slow ~100kt prop-driven
aircraft", Paul?

:Isn't it a terrible thing
:to make up false opinions and attribute them to someone?

Yes, it is. I wish you would stop.

:And is not "tu
:quoque" a despicable loser's tactic?

Still looking in that mirror, Paul?

:Gee, Britain must be building all those tanks just to bust trench
:lines then.
:
:No - times changed.

Gee, exactly my point, Paul.

:The .50" stopped being a useful weapon against
:front-line combat aircraft (and tanks) a long time ago - but it remains
:effective against low slow fliers (which, oddly enough, are the targets
:under discussion here) among many other targets: hence its widespread
:retention and use.

For some definition of 'effective' and depending on which particular
..50 you're talking about.

:Some of us understand these complicated things. Other people, evidently,
:don't...

Some of you apparently understand quite poorly, then, since you find
it convenient to treat all .50 caliber guns as if they are the same.

Of course, they aren't, but then you've never been one to let the
truth get in your way, have you, Paul?

::The UAVs of concern are small 100kt prop jobs.
::
::Poor Fred, so fixated on being right, so determined that he can never be
::wrong...
:
:Paul, this is the sort of remark people have been making for 20 years
:in an effort to 'win' Usenet fights they pick.
:
:And how do I "win a fight" with you, Fred?

Nice of you to admit that this is your goal, Paul.

:You'll never admit to being
:wrong, you'll lie and evade and insult until Hell freezes over rather
:than ever concede the least error.

Another lie, Paul. I admit error all the time. This is just another
Stupid Usenet Trick that has been around for decades, used by folks
who must 'win' and can't do it any other way. It's part and parcel
with the "Don't get mad" (because if the other person is responding
from emotion you must be the 'logical' one), calling someone "troll",
etc.

Pathetic, Paul.

:It's amusing to steer you through your predictable pattern of behaviour,
:that's all.

Yes, this sort of sad little exercise is all you have to prove your
importance to yourself, isn't it, Paul?

::You claimed helicopters can't intercept slow low flying air contacts.
:
:I made no such claim. You're lying again.
:
:"So, Paul thinks that 'interceptor' means 'helicopter'. How low the
:Empire has sunk when that's true." writes Fred.

Note that saying a helicopter isn't an 'interceptor' isn't the same
thing as saying it cannot 'intercept' things, regardless of whatever
definitions Paul wants to pick and choose.

A swimmer with a handgun can "intercept slow low flying air contacts",
too, for some definition of 'intercept'.

:Perhaps this is actually meant to be an acceptance of Fred's error,
:wrapped in one of his petty Anglophobic rants?

"Anglophobic"? You lot have even learned the whole 'culture of the
victim' thing, haven't you? Poor, discriminated against little Paul!

I'm not 'Anglophobic', Paul. I just don't care for liars much.

:It doesn't exactly scream
:"yes, I agree, helicopters *can* intercept low slow fliers". But perhaps
:there's context and meaning hidden there that is too subtle for non-Fred
:life forms to comprehend.
:
:Shall we try a straight question? Earlier, I asked Fred "So, Fred, do
:naval helicopters intercept some types of aerial category or not?"
:
:Fred replies, "No, they do not."
:
:Now, Fred denies his denial. Is Fred dishonest or just confused?

Note the cute word changes. Can they? Sure. Do they? Not in a real
navy. That's done by fast movers, because you want the intercept
point to be further away and they can get there quicker.

::You claimed that helicopters can't carry weapons effective against slow
::low-flying air contacts.
:
:I made no such claim. You're lying again.
:
:Fred goes on to tell us "'Intercept' implies they do something other
:than
:watch once they get out there."
:
Actually, to "intercept" is defined as identification and / or
:engagement,

If one is selective about ones choice of definitions.

:but let's not trouble Fred with more facts than his closed
:little mind can handle)
:
:So to Fred, claiming that helicopters have no ability to engage the
:target, means they carry effective weapons. Strange logic, but that's
:Fred for you.

And Paul continues to lie. Read carefully, Paul.

YOU said I claimed something I never claimed. Now YOU want to
construct further lies around your original.

How very, well, PAUL of you.

::I pointed out that they can and they do.
:
:Are you starting to see a pattern here, Paul?
:
:Certainly am - every time you call me a liar, it's because I've caught
:you in an error, and rather than just shrug and say "live and learn" you
:have to scream "liar!".

It figures. Paul has lied so much he can't even sort out fact from
fiction any more.

::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.
:
:Pathetic lowest form of Usenet life, Paul.
:
:Well, that is *such* a factual riposte that I'm just floored, Fred.

Let's include the rest of that - the bits cut from your cute selective
editing, shall we, Paul?

"You and Tiglet and a handful of others who can only prove your
(self)importance by going about picking fights, distorting and lying
as required."

"I don't mind. Seeing Usenet these days is sad; like living in a
neighborhood that used to be nice but that has gone to seed and been
taken over by hookers and crackheads."

Yep - pathetic lowest form of Usenet life.

::Which would you prefer, Fred? You love to scream "liar", how do you want
::your chance to prove it?
:
:Already proven. See above. You've repeatedly claimed I've said
:things I never said based on your own pathetic misinterpretations.
:
:Sorry, Fred, but you're condemned from your own mouth.

Sorry, Paul, but cute editing tricks and confusing "can" with "do"
hardly represents anything from MY mouth. I'll leave that sort of
distortion to you congenital liars.

:Unless "No, they do not" means "yes" to you, that is...

And so we see Paul confusing the words "can they" with "do they" to
construct his little game this time around.

Poor Paul. This sort of thing is all he has....

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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

:In message ,
:writes
:On Sat, 3 Jun 2006 22:33:09 +0100, "Paul J. Adam"
wrote:
:
:snipped for brevity
:
:I've got a question, Paul. How susceptible would these UAVs be to a
:good, old fashioned "thumping"? I guess the question would go to any
:of the experienced fighter guys, too.
:
:I cheerfully admit that I don't know - we don't have enough spare UAVs
:for that kind of trial

The answer is obvious, if you 'thump' it with something other than a
helo. For the little 1-2 foot wingspan jobs, they'll go right down.

I doubt a helo downwash is going to be enough to do the job, though.

:Do we even need to shoot the *******s?
:
:I'd like to keep the options open. Come in from above (where the sensors
:can't see you) and see if the downwash takes it out: if not, then donate
:some half-inch Raufoss at 1,100 rounds a minute.

So would I. The difference is that I want to use some 20mm shells at
6,000 RPM.

[Paul might want to look up the firing rate for that GAU-16 on the
SH-60 (slower - only 750 RPM), the ammo supply (100 round can), and
the intended purpose of said weapon ("anti-surface warfare and
anti-light armor weapon"). This MIGHT give him some clue about why
our opinions about how to do this differ - but, knowing Paul, it
probably won't.]

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

wrote in message
...
In article Ad6gg.5190$771.1108@edtnps89,
(Ken Chaddock) wrote:

The predominantly wooden deHavilland Mosquito was
one of the first aircraft to be designed with this capability
in mind. Against World War II radar systems, that approach was
fairly successful, but it would not be appropriate today.


I think stealth came way down the list when the Mosquito was
designed, especially as radar was so secret those days. Design of
the Mosquito started in 1938 when German Radar was unknown. It
was more likely wood was adopted because De Haviland had far more
experience with that material than metal. IIRC the DH4 had a
monocoque fuselage.

Ken Young

Plus there was a surfeit of woodworkers, joiners and cabinet makers unable
to practise their normal trade due to the war economy. The complement of
metal-bashers were committed to aircraft and vehicle manufacture, and the
'new' science of laminated materials utilising resins was becoming
available. All these factors culminated in the 'Ministry of Aircraft
Production(?)' authorising the production of the wooden-hulled aircraft and
allocating the necessary engines and hydraulic componentry to DH.

The book 'The New Science of Strong Materials - or Why You Don't Fall
Through the Floor' is recommended for the background to the development of
the Mosquito airframe.

--

Brian

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

Funny, I could have sworn that a couple of Her Majesty's large grey war
canoes were aircraft carriers. In fact, Illustrious is out on OP AQUILA
at the moment with a deckful of Harriers.

She's not a carrier, though - she's a through-deck cruiser ;-)

Only to the die-hards in the Labour Party !

It's an open-secret that the then Labour Government authorised the build of
a class of three 'Through Deck Cruisers'. Anecdotal 'evidence' is that the
Minister was only shown elevations of the vessel - never a overhead view.
The original specs called for a 'huge' number of Gas Turbines which it was
claimed could be utilised to generate electricity in disaster relief
operations to supply (fr'instance) hurricane stricken towns/ports. {Numerous
vugraphs showed how most habitation is adjacent to seas]. It was stated that
the large 'flats' ,aka hangar space, could become emergency casualty wards.
These vessels bore the hull numbers C01, C02, C03.

One of Maggie's first acts was to re-designate them as R05 ~ R07.

--

Brian

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
In article Ad6gg.5190$771.1108@edtnps89,
(Ken Chaddock) wrote:

The predominantly wooden deHavilland Mosquito was
one of the first aircraft to be designed with this capability
in mind. Against World War II radar systems, that approach was
fairly successful, but it would not be appropriate today.


I think stealth came way down the list when the Mosquito was
designed, especially as radar was so secret those days. Design of
the Mosquito started in 1938 when German Radar was unknown. It
was more likely wood was adopted because De Haviland had far more
experience with that material than metal. IIRC the DH4 had a
monocoque fuselage.

Ken Young

Plus there was a surfeit of woodworkers, joiners and cabinet makers
unable
to practise their normal trade due to the war economy. The
complement of
metal-bashers were committed to aircraft and vehicle manufacture,
and the
'new' science of laminated materials utilising resins was becoming
available. All these factors culminated in the 'Ministry of Aircraft
Production(?)' authorising the production of the wooden-hulled
aircraft and
allocating the necessary engines and hydraulic componentry to DH.

The book 'The New Science of Strong Materials - or Why You Don't
Fall
Through the Floor' is recommended for the background to the
development of
the Mosquito airframe.

Time for the contribution of Ogden Nash to be recognized:

Some primal termite knocked on wood,
Tasted it, and found it good.
That is why your Cousin May
Fell through the parlour floor today.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
:So, we are that a helicopter can effectively engage a low slow flier,
:correct?

For some definition of "effectively", "low" and "slow".

Thank you.

snip

Gentlemen, those of us who've more or less followed the 'discussion' to this
point have, I think, long since reached our conclusions about which of your
positions is more likely correct, as well as which of you is behaving in a
more honest, forthright and objective manner. Repetition ad ad ad nauseum of
the same points serves no useful purpose. Just to make my position perfectly
clear,

'E's not pinin'! 'E's passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be!
'E's expired and gone to meet 'is maker! 'E's a stiff! Bereft of life, 'e
rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed 'im to the perch 'e'd be pushing up the
daisies! 'Is metabolic processes are now 'istory! 'E's off the twig! 'E's
kicked the bucket, 'e's shuffled off 'is mortal coil, rung down the curtain
and joined the bleedin' choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

If either/both of you still finds amusement in continuing this exchange, well
and good, but I imagine the rest of us find it increasingly tedious. FWIW,
may I suggest that each of you call a halt, and take away from it the
certainty of the rightness of your position and its support/ approbation of
some percentage of your audience; for yourselves, such percentage to be
determined solely in your own minds, plus whatever public/private indications
you may receive.

Good day.

Guy

"Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message
...
"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
In article Ad6gg.5190$771.1108@edtnps89,
(Ken Chaddock) wrote:

The predominantly wooden deHavilland Mosquito was
one of the first aircraft to be designed with this capability
in mind. Against World War II radar systems, that approach was
fairly successful, but it would not be appropriate today.


I think stealth came way down the list when the Mosquito was
designed, especially as radar was so secret those days. Design of
the Mosquito started in 1938 when German Radar was unknown. It
was more likely wood was adopted because De Haviland had far more
experience with that material than metal. IIRC the DH4 had a
monocoque fuselage.

Ken Young

Plus there was a surfeit of woodworkers, joiners and cabinet makers
unable
to practise their normal trade due to the war economy. The
complement of
metal-bashers were committed to aircraft and vehicle manufacture,
and the
'new' science of laminated materials utilising resins was becoming
available. All these factors culminated in the 'Ministry of Aircraft
Production(?)' authorising the production of the wooden-hulled
aircraft and
allocating the necessary engines and hydraulic componentry to DH.

The book 'The New Science of Strong Materials - or Why You Don't
Fall
Through the Floor' is recommended for the background to the
development of
the Mosquito airframe.

Time for the contribution of Ogden Nash to be recognized:

Some primal termite knocked on wood,
Tasted it, and found it good.
That is why your Cousin May
Fell through the parlour floor today.
--

The " ... why you don't fall through the floor " part of the title is posed,
and explained. by the question; - 'if atoms are composed of nuclei and
electrons - with vast relative spacing between the particles, and both the
floor and your feet are composed of atoms - with vast relative spaces
between them ... " ... why you don't fall through the floor " ?
Luckily ; termites don't figure too much in English woodworkery ...

--

Brian

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

:In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
:"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
::So, we are that a helicopter can effectively engage a low slow flier,
::correct?
:
:For some definition of "effectively", "low" and "slow".
:
:Thank you.
:
::So in fact you agree that helicopters *can* intercept slow low fliers
::and *do* have capability against them?
:
:Of course. So can a swimmer with a handgun.
:
:No, because the swimmer can't catch them, nor is his weapon likely to be
:effective.

The swimmer can't 'catch' an INBOUND aircraft? Hell, he hardly has to
move at all, Paul.

:Still, let's not demand logic or sense from Fred...

Still, let's not demand basic physics or sense from Paul...

::Really, Fred? A quick perusal of Joint Publication 1-02 (Department of
:efense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms) gives us
::"interceptor" as "A manned aircraft utilized for identification and/or
::engagement of airborne objects."
::
::Sounds like it fits the bill.
:
:Now look around some more and you'll find other definitions where it
:doesn't fit the bill.
:
:Quite handy to pick and choose, Paul.
:
:Thanks, but I leave those games to folks like Tiglath... and you.

Would that you did. However, that's just another bit of prevarication
on your part.

::If you send a helicopter to investigate a low slow flyer, is it not "a
::manned aircraft utilized for identification and/or engagement of
::airborne objects"? According to the US DoD, that's an 'interceptor', but
::Fred doesn't believe them.
:
:No, according to one document (which rather neglects to define
:'aircraft', so you can see how complete THAT is) it is. Now break out
:your handy dandy desktop dictionary and look up 'interceptor', Paul.
:
:Thanks, but when I'm talking to the military I use their definitions.
:
::Or, perhaps, Paul is right and Fred has to keep screaming "liar!"
::because he's been caught - yet again - making grossly incorrect
::statements.
:
:The two aren't even connected, Paul. Go count the number of times
:you've claimed I said something I never said.
:
:Except for those times when Fred *has* said it and now has to
bfusticate and whine.

Speaking of folks going into "obfusticate and whine" mode...

::Amusing evasion, Fred. How does the USN HELDET participation in NW063's
::"slow low-flyer" phase prove me a liar?
:
:Where did I ever "insist it can't be done and it's not possible and
:the aircraft have no capability", Paul.
:
:I quote you saying so and you doubt it?

Well, no. Go read exactly what was said again, Paul.

:All I did was ask a few simple questions.
:
:All you did was make a few bold, sweeping and incorrect statements.

All you did was make a few bold, sweeping and prevaricating
statements.

:All you did was lie about
:what I said.
:
:So helicopters *can* effectively intercept slow low fliers?

For some definition of 'effectively', 'slow', and 'low'. We've been
through this, Paul.

:Then why
:have you been whining so loud and long, protesting that I'm a liar,

Because you have been going on and on about my having said things I
never said. That's called lying. That's why I call you a liar.

:and
:generally making a fool of yourself?

Well, no. Recognizing you lie is hardly making a fool of ME.

:Oh, wait - Fred is now trying to evade by saying he never said it was
:*impossible*,

Evade? Paul, I never did say it was impossible. You lied and claimed
that. Now you're acting as if it's true. Are you really this
dishonest, or merely this deluded?

:it's just that 'real navies' don't do it, except that even
:the USN is exercising its capability in that regard... so are we to take
:it that according to Fred the USN isn't a "real navy"?

Paul, show me one instance in the real world (not some contrived
exercise with the little cousins) where a US carrier 'scrambled
helicopters' to act as interceptors. Just one will do.

Show me anyplace where the GAU-16 (the gun SH-60s OPTIONALLY may
carry) is described by the Navy as an air-to-air weapon. Just one
will do.

::Answer the question, Fred - can helicopters intercept slow low-flyers or
::not?
::
::Oh, wait, you did. Have you changed your mind?
:
:No, Paul. I haven't changed my mind and I'm pretty unlikely to do so
:in the face of a pathetic little ****** like you.
:
:I'd ask you what YOU think my answer is, but I'm sure you'll get it
:wrong.
:
:I asked YOU what your answer is, because it's dishonest to invent an
pinion and falsely attribute it to someone.

Then why do you do it so frequently? Why are there so many examples
of your doing it throughout this very thread?

Well, unless you're Fred, in which case it's perfectly reasonable when
:*he* does it)

Ah, projection, thy name is 'Paul'.

::No, Fred - what were you saying about liars?
:
:So what is your point in dredging up the factoid that there have been
:machine guns intended for "shooting at small slow ~100kt prop-driven
:aircraft", Paul?
:
:Because they're being used to shoot at small slow ~100kt prop-driven
:aircraft, in this case, Fred, and you claim they're useless for the task

Lying again. Where did I say that, Paul? Please point to my ever
saying that they're "useless". Come on. After all, "it's dishonest
to invent an opinion and falsely attribute it to someone".

ISN'T IT?

despite the concept being designed for the task)

Gee, all those folks in trenches must have really been airplanes,
then. Right?

::Some of us understand these complicated things. Other people, evidently,
::don't...
:
:Some of you apparently understand quite poorly, then, since you find
:it convenient to treat all .50 caliber guns as if they are the same.
:
:No, I'm referring in particular to the M3M; the USN can evaluate its own
:equipment and make its own decisions.

Ah, and we're back to your particular piece of kit on your particular
helicopter in your particular (ahem) navy. Which, might I note, is
not the particular piece of kit on the particular helicopter discussed
in the original story, which was from a different navy.

Yeah, nothing dishonest about Paul.

Where did I refer to "all .50 calibre guns" as the same, by the way? Is
:this one of those instances of lying about what someone says, that Fred
:claims to find so hateful and mendacious? Surely Fred can produce
:evidence that I consider all '.50 guns' to be equal? Or is he just lying
:his ass off now?)

You claimed that they must (as a general rule) be useful since they
were originally tasked to shoot at 'kites'.

Please show me where the GAU-16 mounted on an SH-60 is ever described
as an air-to-air weapon, Paul.

:Of course, they aren't, but then you've never been one to let the
:truth get in your way, have you, Paul?
:
:I stick to the truth because it works.

Would that this was true. This thread would have ended long ago.

:Watching you try to wriggle your
:way out of your own words is amusing, though.

Watching you twist them is, well, I guess 'pathetic' is the word I
would use, Paul.

::It's amusing to steer you through your predictable pattern of behaviour,
::that's all.
:
:Yes, this sort of sad little exercise is all you have to prove your
:importance to yourself, isn't it, Paul?
:
:More invention and falsehood from Fred.

Sure, Paul. That's why you do it. Now, after spraying all your
falsehoods, you claim it's me.

:Here's a hint, Fred - Aunt Sally doesn't call the shots.

That's nice. Who's Aunt Sally when she's up and dressed and why
should I care?

Just more Paul trying to convince himself he's important and clever...

::"So, Paul thinks that 'interceptor' means 'helicopter'. How low the
::Empire has sunk when that's true." writes Fred.
:
:Note that saying a helicopter isn't an 'interceptor' isn't the same
:thing as saying it cannot 'intercept' things, regardless of whatever
:definitions Paul wants to pick and choose.
:
:So, Fred wriggles predictably.

Interestingly, Paul now reveals that he considers pointing to the
facts to be mere "wriggles".

Well, I suppose they are when you lie the way he does.

::Shall we try a straight question? Earlier, I asked Fred "So, Fred, do
::naval helicopters intercept some types of aerial category or not?"
::
::Fred replies, "No, they do not."
::
::Now, Fred denies his denial. Is Fred dishonest or just confused?
:
:Note the cute word changes. Can they? Sure. Do they? Not in a real
:navy.
:
:So the USN isn't coming over to do just that this month? Strange.

We frequently do things with the little cousins that we don't do when
we're playing for keeps, Paul. Look at your history of the Empire.
I'm sure the practice will start looking familiar to you.

::Fred goes on to tell us "'Intercept' implies they do something other
::than
::watch once they get out there."
::
:Actually, to "intercept" is defined as identification and / or
::engagement,
:
:If one is selective about ones choice of definitions.
:
:Well, I stick to the DoD version. Tiglath likes to search until he finds
:someone using a word in the way he likes, but I thought that was more
:than a little dishonest.

Uh, Paul? That's just ONE DoD version. This is barely different than
what you describe Tiglet doing, above.

::So to Fred, claiming that helicopters have no ability to engage the
::target, means they carry effective weapons. Strange logic, but that's
::Fred for you.
:
:And Paul continues to lie. Read carefully, Paul.
:
:YOU said I claimed something I never claimed.
:
:Like, that helicopters never intercept air contacts?

Try reading carefully, Paul. I know it's tough, but it's ok if you
have to move your lips. No one will see.

Point to a SINGLE instance in the real world (rather than in a
contrived exercise) where a US carrier 'scrambled helicopters' to act
as INTERCEPTORS (not recce). Just one will do.

: Now YOU want to
:construct further lies around your original.
:
:Not my fault that they can and they do.

Yes, it is your fault that you can and do construct further lies
around your originals.

:How very, well, PAUL of you.
:
:Yep - really sucks to make such a performance out of being wrong,
:doesn't it, Fred?

You ought to know.

::Certainly am - every time you call me a liar, it's because I've caught
::you in an error, and rather than just shrug and say "live and learn" you
::have to scream "liar!".
:
:It figures. Paul has lied so much he can't even sort out fact from
:fiction any more.
:
:See what I mean?

Yes, I do. But obfuscation only makes YOU feel better, Paul.

::Well, that is *such* a factual riposte that I'm just floored, Fred.
:
:Let's include the rest of that - the bits cut from your cute selective
:editing, shall we, Paul?
:
:"You and Tiglet and a handful of others who can only prove your
:(self)importance by going about picking fights, distorting and lying
:as required."
:
:"I don't mind. Seeing Usenet these days is sad; like living in a
:neighborhood that used to be nice but that has gone to seed and been
:taken over by hookers and crackheads."
:
:Yep - pathetic lowest form of Usenet life.
:
:I don't see any refutations or any facts in there, Fred, but repeat your
:whining as much as you like if it makes you happy.

But you had to snip it to try to make things sound different, didn't
you?

:You're calling me a liar and generally doing your usual posturing ranter
:act, because I'm telling you that helicopters not only have an effective
:capability to intercept slow low fliers, but actually train to do. The
:USN agrees with me and is sending some of its own helos to participate
:in such an exercise.

No, Paul. I'm calling you a liar because you lie. You've repeatedly
lied throughout this thread about what I've said. When I immediately
point it out I get back "What lie"?

I believe you're stupid, but I don't believe you're THAT stupid.

:While you're trumpeting your outrage and insisting that I'm a liar,
:reality is leaving you behind, Fred...

So you just go on believing that the USN is using helicopters off
carriers as interceptors, Paul, even though you can't point to a
single episode where this was done in the real world.

Hint: Exercises are CONTRIVED scenarios where all sorts of odd things
might be trialed or else might be done to 'play nice' with the little
kids.

Oh, I believe that YOU use them that way, Paul. I just see no
convincing evidence that they'd be the vehicle of choice if you had
any choice.

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

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

:In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
:"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
::I'd like to keep the options open. Come in from above (where the sensors
::can't see you) and see if the downwash takes it out: if not, then donate
::some half-inch Raufoss at 1,100 rounds a minute.
:
:So would I. The difference is that I want to use some 20mm shells at
:6,000 RPM.
:
:And I'd like to give the gunner a larger target and more time to fire -
lus not everyone, not even the USN, has a fast jet in attendance on
:every unit at all times, but many of those units have helicopters.

And most of those helicopters don't have a gun.

:[Paul might want to look up the firing rate for that GAU-16 on the
:SH-60 (slower - only 750 RPM), the ammo supply (100 round can), and
:the intended purpose of said weapon ("anti-surface warfare and
:anti-light armor weapon").
:
:Fred might want to look up the stats for the M3M - 1,100rpm and a
:600-round feed - before making bold, sweeping statements. Not every
:naval helicopter is a SH-60 and not every doorgun is a GAU-16.

Context, Paul. Remember that the context is the claim that a US
aircraft carrier scrambled "2 helicopters and 4 fighters" to intercept
a UAV. Every naval helicopter isn't an SH-60 and not every doorgun is
a GAU-16, but it's pretty much a given that NO Naval helicopter is a
Lynx and no Naval helicopter doorgun is an M3M.

Hint for Paul - Capitalization in this case matters, as does context.

:This MIGHT give him some clue about why
:our opinions about how to do this differ - but, knowing Paul, it
:probably won't.]
:
:Just confirms the narrowness of Fred's mind - if he doesn't think it's
ossible then it can't be done, regardless of whether it's actually
:happening or not.

Just confirms the dishonestly of Paul's mind - nothing he claims as my
attitude above has anything to do with anything I've said. In other
words, once again he lies.

One more time, Paul - context matters.

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