Defense against UAV's

Guy Alcala wrote:
"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

SAAF also claims a door gunner kill against a Zimbabwe? Defender.
There are likely to be other accounts as well. Of course the ratio of
fixed vs rotary in not in the Helo's favor
Pain

Guy Alcala wrote:

:"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
f the AN-2, I'll share first:

snip

:Okay, your turn to tell us all about the the stealth fighter that was shot down
:with a handgun;-)

They don't actually know what took him down. 'Golden BB' is all they
could come up with, since nobody saw anything happen.

Heard it at a meeting with the Nightstalkers.

"Yeah, they say we're invisible, but we've still got one who didn't
come back."

: :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
articular type of target.

It's better suited to it than a door gunner over iron sights.

--
"Rule Number One for Slayers - Don't die."
-- Buffy, the Vampire Slayer

schrieb:
Moritz Wünsch wrote:

schrieb:


The responses so far all point to several things:


snip

3. It is always likely to prove difficult to spot a small, stealthy UAV
by any means - visual, IR or radar. Furthermore, existing gun/missile
systems are not designed to engage such targets and may have great
difficulty in doing so.


What about using lidar?
In bad weather the drone/UAV might be degraded as well as your lidar-system.

And for defence/shooting them down maybe something like THEL could be
used, and I believe the range of THEL being superior to that of most gun
systems.


That sounds like a promising approach - but I believe it would be quite
a few years before such a system could be in service. Which is, of
course, the crux of the problem: the threat is relatively low-tech,
cheap, proven and available now, the responses to it are high-tech,
costly, unproven and available "sometime in the future".

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

I m no expert, but as far as I know there do exist working lidar systems
,eg. from Kayser Threde, although it is mostly used to measure air currents.

In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
"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.

Don't bother, Fred.

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

"Arrogand ******", in this case as so often otherwise, being anyone who
catches Fred getting it loudly wrong yet again.

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

Talk about irony....

No, thamks, I prefer goldy or silvery - higher resale values.

:"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.

Helicopters carry WEAPONS, Fred.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GAU-16_.50_MG.jpg is a nice example
of the US version:

http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/...MediaFile.6900 shows a Lynx
with two Skua and a M3M.

Gee, not so wrong after all, I guess.

Right - naval helicopters don't do aerial intercepts, except that they
do. They're unarmed apart from their weapons. What is Fred going to
amaze us with next?

: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?

Certainly could, Fred. See, instead of coming in at ~150 knots of
overtake, trying to hit a one-foot-diameter target with a fixed gun
whose sights aren't registering the target properly, in a helicopter you
can pull up alongside for a leisurely shoot at zero relative velocity,
with no rush and no hurry.

Now, you may claim US machine gunners may be unable to hit a four-foot
by one foot target (ScanEagle from the side) from, say, fifty metres
(let's give them a decent standoff distance in case the UAV does
something unpredictable) but if you're right then the RN can give them
some lessons. (Personally I think you're wrong yet again, but we'll
see).

(Oh, and who told you that the MGs only had iron sights? Or that they
were ineffective for anything other than ground fire?)


You've got an extraordinarily ill-tempered manner of saying "I was
wrong".

--
Paul J. Adam

John P. Mullen wrote:
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

The Navy does spend money on things other than $800 toilet seats.

Ken Chaddock wrote:
Mark Borgerson wrote:

snip

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

I think weight vs. strength is a factor, too.

John Mullen

wrote in message
ups.com...

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

Can you give a cite for a ramjet model? Also, could you please cite a role
for a ramjet powered UAV (other than a harpoon/tomahawk - I suppose they
could be considered UAVs).

I suppose one of the reasons is the role these UAVs have at the moment. One
of their biggest advantages is their loiter time. You get the best loiter
times with a low power prop driven a/c. Also, speed is not a necessity for
recon - unless you are trying to out run an adversary. Lastly, UAVs are
expendable and prop driven aircraft are relatively cheap.

I keep hearing about how UAVs are going to take out a carrier. How the hell
much explosive can one of these craft carry? Also, if there is not some
sort of penetrator nose on the thing (more weight), the best it can do is
superficial damage to just about any vessel. I daresay, the most payload
one of these things can carry is about 25lbs.

I really have no expertise in this area, I am just speculating based on my
conjecture.


Mark

"Juergen Nieveler" wrote in message
. ..
"John P. Mullen" wrote:

How about cannister from a five incher?

Pull!

Next you'll ask for the battleships to be reactivated... no UAV would
survive a 16" cannister round :-)

Juergen Nieveler
--
Never try to understand Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Relativity is like an erection, the more you think about it, the harder it
gets.

Oh crap, here we go. What the hell, how about grape from a Napoleon twelve
pounder.


Mark.

Juergen Nieveler wrote:
"John P. Mullen" wrote:


How about cannister from a five incher?

Pull!


Next you'll ask for the battleships to be reactivated... no UAV would
survive a 16" cannister round :-)

Juergen Nieveler

Well, that's a bit of trouble.

How about a good goose gun? Maybe a ten gage?

John Mullen

In message , Mark Bradford
writes
wrote in message
oups.com...
What makes you think UAVs are restricted to props for propulsion?

Can you give a cite for a ramjet model? Also, could you please cite a role
for a ramjet powered UAV (other than a harpoon/tomahawk - I suppose they
could be considered UAVs).

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cl289/

gets you a jet-propelled UAV that's been in service for some time.

They're unusual - for most applications a prop seems to give better
endurance-range-speed tradeoffs - but not totally unheard of.

--
Paul J. Adam