If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#162
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Mark Borgerson wrote:
In article .com, says... Andrew Swallow wrote: Many UAVs are flown under remote control. Radio direction finding may permit the location of its headquarters to be found. Good point, few countries have enough satellite bandwidth to manage UAVs the way the US does, so unless Iran is buying bandwidth from someone else, they'd have to be RC controlled UAVs. Fully autonomous UAVs are not common today---but they probably will be in another few years. They would be particularly good for surveillance of large targets like a CVBG. The UAV could send out data and wait for very generic microburst commands like "circle left, 20mile radius". That would make it hard to attack the controller. While it may be possible get a DF location on a randomly-timed, 10millisecond, spread spectrum signal from a mobile command post, it might also be very expensive. And, you'd have to be looking for it. There is a lot of spectrum to monitor. John Mullen |
#163
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
wrote:
: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 Someone needs to explain to the author just what the word "refuted" means. They didn't refute the claims at all. They merely denied them. Personally I think the claims are preposterous bull****, but nothing I saw 'refuted' them. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#164
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Mark Borgerson wrote:
In article %AMfg.1638$I61.24@clgrps13, says... wrote: Ken Chaddock wrote: Block 1B CIWS has an infrared and optical tracker that would do nicely against any UAV within it's range...the question is finding the UAV in the first place. An Infrared search system with the ability to designate to a B1B Phalanx would work quite well I think... But a prop-driven UAV with a small engine and some attention to exhaust masking would not be an easy IR target. If all you want to do is locate and identify a ship, and beam an illuminating laser at it to guide the incoming ordnance, then the UAV can be very small and very hard to detect. Tony Williams Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk Have you ever seen the radar return from a prop ? Looks like a bloody 747...a prop-job wouldn't be a particular problem and contrary to popular misconception, most modern IR trackers don't rely on a hugh heat gradient but rather on the difference in emissivity between the target and the background, IOW it's tracking the delta, not the absolute IR output of the target... So what IS the radar return from a wooden or fiberglass propellor like? Not as strong as from metal but still there and the main feature of the return is the doppler...which is unique and quite distinctive since it varies from hub (near zero doppler) to quite high since the prop tip is almost certainly supersonic. Remember Mark, you do get a radar return from wood and fiberglass Fundamentals of Stealth Design The following article was written by Alan Brown, who retired as Director of Engineering at Lockheed Corporate Headquarters in 1991. He is generally regarded as one of the 'founding fathers' of stealth, or low observable technology. He served for several years as director of low observables technology at Lockheed Aeronautical Systems Co. in Marietta, Ga. From 1978 to 1982, he was the program manager and chief engineer for the F-117 stealth fighter and had been active in stealth programs since 1975. This article first appeared in 1992. Design for low observability, and specifically for low radar cross section (RCS), began almost as soon as radar was invented. 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. First, wood and, by extension, composite materials, are not transparent to radar, although they may be less reflective than metal; and second, the degree to which they are transparent merely amplifies the components that are normally hidden by the outer skin. These include engines, fuel, avionics packages, electrical and hydraulic circuits, and people. The UAVs that I've seen and the powered paragliders don't have metal propellors. I suspect the reason is economics, rather than stealth, though. I'm absolutely positive... ....Ken |
#165
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Paul J. Adam wrote:
In message , Fred J. McCall writes 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). M-16 with Mk-I eyeball targetting. -HJC |
#167
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
"Paul J. Adam" wrote: snip :"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! Gven that the flight engineer on an Air America Huey was able to shoot down an AN-2 using a hand-held AK-47, using a door gun while flying co-speed and parallel to a UAV should be doable, given that they can get a lot closer than any fighter without needing to take avoiding action (owing to much lower -- zero under ideal conditions -- closure rates. A UAV is a smaller target, but likely able to take less violent avoiding action. Put a lead-computing sight on the MG and it's easier, or just load it with lots of tracer. Depending on how close they're willing to get (mainly a question of how violently the UAV is or might be maneuvering), instead of an LCOSS they might be able to get away with a simple laser sight. Alternatively, forward-firing rockets with prox. fuses may do the trick, at relatively low cost. Guy |
#168
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Guy Alcala wrote:
:"Fred J. McCall" wrote: : : "Paul J. Adam" wrote: : :snip : : :"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! : :Gven that the flight engineer on an Air America Huey was able to shoot down :an AN-2 using a hand-held AK-47, Yes, and someone knocked down a stealth fighter with a handgun. :using a door gun while flying co-speed and arallel to a UAV should be doable, given that they can get a lot closer than :any fighter without needing to take avoiding action (owing to much lower -- :zero under ideal conditions -- closure rates. A UAV is a smaller target, but :likely able to take less violent avoiding action. Put a lead-computing :sight on the MG and it's easier, or just load it with lots of tracer. epending on how close they're willing to get (mainly a question of how :violently the UAV is or might be maneuvering), instead of an LCOSS they might :be able to get away with a simple laser sight. Alternatively, forward-firing :rockets with prox. fuses may do the trick, at relatively low cost. Why go to all this trouble? Use the bloody system that is already designed to deal with air vehicles. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#169
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Greg Hennessy wrote: On 31 May 2006 01:51:29 -0700, wrote: rb wrote: The US navy in particular seems to have seen the writing on the wall for some time now, hence (I would assume) part of the reason for their interest in developing the 'Millenium' gun and expressed interest in the naval 57mm cannon. http://www.lockheedmartin.com/wms/fi...=400&jsi=false http://www.navyleague.org/sea_power/dec_04_46.php The 35mm Millennium gun would qualify - that's designed to fire the AHEAD ammo I mentioned - but I'm not so sure about the Bofors 57mm. In the AA mode that uses radar aiming and proximity fuzes, and I'm not sure if either would be sensitive enough to respond to a small stealthy UAV. I would have thought that the 3Ps range gate fusing would be ideal for that ? A UAV with a spinning propellor is not going to be overly stealthy, hard to see yes, invisible to radar ? What makes you think UAVs are restricted to props for propulsion? Pain |
#170
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
"Fred J. McCall" wrote:
Guy Alcala wrote: :"Fred J. McCall" wrote: snip : 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! : :Gven that the flight engineer on an Air America Huey was able to shoot down :an AN-2 using a hand-held AK-47, Yes, and someone knocked down a stealth fighter with a handgun. I'm sure you'll give a cite for that, Fred, but since I know about the Huey kill of the AN-2, I'll share first: "It Happened To Me by Walt Darran as told to M.L. Jones SOF Contributing Aviation Editor Walt Darran. who flew Navy fighter planes from 1961-67 and piloted Air America and Continental Air Services cargo planes from 1967-69, was present in Laos when (for the only time in aviation history) a helicopter shot down a fixed- wing aircraft - indeed, two of them. The victims were two Polish-built PZL Mielex Antonov AN-2 biplanes, known as Colts, of the North Vietnamese Air Force. The victor was an Air America Huey whose only armament was an AK-47 assault rifle. As Darran tells it: On 12 January 1968, an Air America Huey was delivering 105mm ammo from a U.S. TACAN (navigational aids) station perched on a high pinnacle deep in northern Laos to some artillery positions down below. I was flying a Continental Air Services Pilatus Porter (a single-engine turboprop transport capable of short landings and takeoffs) making some rice drops in the area at the time. I had just headed back for LS36 (a Royal Laotian Army base) to refuel when the choppcr pilot, Ted Moore, screamed over the radio that two Colts were strafing and bombing the artillery positions. We were the only ones in VHF radio contact with one another at the time and since I was higher, I transmitted the message to CROWN (an orbiting C-130 with powerful radio equipment capable of relaying messages from Laos and Vietnam to U.S. 7th Fleet aircraft carriers) for fighters, all the while ****ed as hell that I was almost out of fuel. I was familiar with the Colt. When I was in the Navy, they'd send us out on "Dawn Patrols," looking for the. rascals. They were used for aerial drops to isolated outposts, usually right at dawn in order to avoid visual sightings. To the best of my knowledge, the military never got one. Nor did they this time, despite the fact that all kinds of fighters were scrambled and sent to the area. By the time they got there, it was all over. I heard Ted say, "****, I'm faster and can outmaneuver them." So off the Huey went in pursuit. Glen Wood, the flight mechanic, had an AK-47 and shot the *******s down while the Huey made a few passes. One went down near the scene and the other pancaked into a hill it couldn't outclimb, about 13 miles away. I had to go to Vientiane the next day, so I missed getting any of the real goodies like Russian pistols, watches and so forth that were distributed when a Chinook brought one of the wrecks into LS36. One of the guys did manage to save me some of the canvas from the only fixed-wing aircraft ever shot down by a chopper." Cited from: http://limasite85.us/ann_holland_page_2.htm If you consider "Soldier of Fortune" to be a somewhat untrustworthy source, there are plenty of others describing the events. Here's another, slightly differing in the details: http://home.hiwaay.net/~jlwebs/misc.html and a third, ditto: http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/95unclass/Linder.html Okay, your turn to tell us all about the the stealth fighter that was shot down with a handgun;-) :using a door gun while flying co-speed and arallel to a UAV should be doable, given that they can get a lot closer than :any fighter without needing to take avoiding action (owing to much lower -- :zero under ideal conditions -- closure rates. A UAV is a smaller target, but :likely able to take less violent avoiding action. Put a lead-computing :sight on the MG and it's easier, or just load it with lots of tracer. epending on how close they're willing to get (mainly a question of how :violently the UAV is or might be maneuvering), instead of an LCOSS they might :be able to get away with a simple laser sight. Alternatively, forward-firing :rockets with prox. fuses may do the trick, at relatively low cost. Why go to all this trouble? Use the bloody system that is already designed to deal with air vehicles. Because, as Paul has pointed out, it's fairly poorly suited to dealing with this particular type of target. Doesn't mean it could never do the job, but it's an inefficient use of resources. Larger UAVs are a different matter. Guy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GAO: Electronic Warfa Comprehensive Strategy Needed for Suppressing Enemy | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 27th 05 06:23 PM |
CRS: V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 14th 05 08:14 PM |
Air defense (naval and air force) | Mike | Military Aviation | 0 | September 18th 04 04:42 PM |
Naval air defense | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 18th 04 04:42 PM |
Showstoppers (long, but interesting questions raised) | Anonymous Spamless | Military Aviation | 0 | April 21st 04 05:09 AM |