Defense against UAV's

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.

Tony Williams
Military gun and ammunition website: http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk


How about cannister from a five incher?

Pull!

:-)

John Mullen

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

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

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

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

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

“No planes were scrambled at all. That did not happen.”

So they didn't detect it? ;-)

-HJC

"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

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

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

"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