Defense against UAV's

Paul J. Adam wrote:
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.

Props are more efficient at low speeds and low altitudes.

The Pentagon is still buying turboprop transports after all.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hercules/

-HJC

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

: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.
:
on't bother, Fred.

Fine. Just don't go all into a snit when you get slapped.

: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.

Wrong again, Paul. Jesus, you NEVER figure it out, do you?

::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.

Not air-to-air weapons, Paul. Air-to-air interceptors carry
air-to-air weapons so that they can, well, INTERCEPT and not just
stand by and watch.

:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GAU-16_.50_MG.jpg is a nice example
f the US version:
:
:http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/...MediaFile.6900 shows a Lynx
:with two Skua and a M3M.

Yes, another fine set of air-to-air weapons. NOT.

: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 amazes me is how poorly some of you ENGLISH seem to be at
comprehension of your mother tongue.

::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
vertake, 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.

And a worse weapon used in a non-intended way. As usual, Paul hears
and sees what he want to and disregards the rest.

: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, I see. Now we're to the usual Paul Adam game where you just make
**** up and then pretend that I've said it.

Yeah, about what's expected from you, Paul.

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

Oh, and who told you they had something other than 'iron sights' (look
at your own picture - what do YOU see him using for a sight).

Where did I say anything remotely resembling that "they were
ineffective for anything other than ground fire"?

Don't look now, but you're already starting to make **** up and then
lie about my having said it again, Paul.

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

And you've got an entirely ordinary way of lying about what I've said.
I categorize it as 'ordinary' based on your past history of similar
behaviour.

It's only expected from you by now, Paul.

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

Juergen Nieveler wrote:

:Henry J Cobb 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? ;-)
:
:Just like no Ohio has ever been tracked by russian subs. Maybe it's
:true, but probably it's just wishful thinking.

Wrong again, Juergen. You can probably believe that no Ohio has ever
been tracked by Russian subs, for good and sufficient reason that
Ohios can detect them first and avoid them.

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

In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
:"Arrogand ******", in this case as so often otherwise, being anyone who
:catches Fred getting it loudly wrong yet again.

Wrong again, Paul. Jesus, you NEVER figure it out, do you?

So, Fred, do naval helicopters intercept some types of aerial category
or not?

You claimed not and said the idea was ludicrous: I'm seariding in an
exercise where they plan to do just that.

What do I not "figure out" apart from your curious cocktail of arrogance
and ignorance?

:Helicopters carry WEAPONS, Fred.

Not air-to-air weapons, Paul. Air-to-air interceptors carry
air-to-air weapons so that they can, well, INTERCEPT and not just
stand by and watch.

So a .50" machine gun isn't able to engage aircraft, Fred?

:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GAU-16_.50_MG.jpg is a nice example
f the US version:
:
:http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/...MediaFile.6900 shows a Lynx
:with two Skua and a M3M.

Yes, another fine set of air-to-air weapons. NOT.

So, a .50" machine gun can't shoot down a UAV?

Curious claim. Do you have any evidence for that, or is this another of
your bold baseless assertions?

: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 amazes me is how poorly some of you ENGLISH seem to be at
comprehension of your mother tongue.

Nice evasion. Can you explain why your own navy is exercising at a task
you've claim is impossible, implausible and without reason?

:Certainly could, Fred. See, instead of coming in at ~150 knots of
vertake, 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.

And a worse weapon used in a non-intended way.

Some of us are less closed-minded and more adaptable than you, Fred.

As usual, Paul hears
and sees what he want to and disregards the rest.

I'm just participating in the exercise, what do I know?

: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, I see. Now we're to the usual Paul Adam game where you just make
**** up and then pretend that I've said it.

"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" writes Fred.

What part of that is expressing confidence in the gunner's ability to
hit a man-size target at fifty metres' range?

Yeah, about what's expected from you, Paul.

Quite so - more Fred foolishness exposed.

What are you going to insist is impossible next?

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

Oh, and who told you they had something other than 'iron sights' (look
at your own picture - what do YOU see him using for a sight).

The Lynx Tactical Development desk officer. (He works two legs down from
my office.)

One of the trials objectives is testing the newly-procured thermal
sights for the M3M guns in a variety of roles; the guns were quickly
acquired as a UOR for Telic, and having proved highly effective the
improved sights were procured in slower time.

Where did I say anything remotely resembling that "they were
ineffective for anything other than ground fire"?

"a weapon never intended to fire at anything but the ground" and "And a
worse weapon used in a non-intended way" would certainly seem to
qualify.

But then Fred seems to forget that the heavy machine gun started out
with the German 13mm TuF, or "Tank und Flieger", which was designed with
the role of shooting at ~100kt air targets in mind.

Don't look now, but you're already starting to make **** up and then
lie about my having said it again, Paul.

Sorry, Fred, but whining about being caught out does you no good.

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

And you've got an entirely ordinary way of lying about what I've said.
I categorize it as 'ordinary' based on your past history of similar
behaviour.

Meaning, Fred is hoping that if he flings enough **** he can hide his
tracks.

It's only expected from you by now, Paul.

Don't like being proved wrong, do you?


Back to your original claim - "Helicopters aren't used as interceptors."
Is the fact that helicopters are in fact exercising their capability to
intercept some types of air contacts, not sinking in yet?

--
Paul J. Adam

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

:In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
:"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
::"Arrogand ******", in this case as so often otherwise, being anyone who
::catches Fred getting it loudly wrong yet again.
:
:Wrong again, Paul. Jesus, you NEVER figure it out, do you?
:
:So, Fred, do naval helicopters intercept some types of aerial category
r not?

No, they do not. 'Intercept' implies they do something other than
watch once they get out there.

:You claimed not and said the idea was ludicrous: I'm seariding in an
:exercise where they plan to do just that.

Yes, of course you are.

:What do I not "figure out" apart from your curious cocktail of arrogance
:and ignorance?

Try reading the words, Paul.

::Helicopters carry WEAPONS, Fred.
:
:Not air-to-air weapons, Paul. Air-to-air interceptors carry
:air-to-air weapons so that they can, well, INTERCEPT and not just
:stand by and watch.
:
:So a .50" machine gun isn't able to engage aircraft, Fred?

I said that where, Paul? Just making more **** up and lying, as is
your usual wont.

Hint: I can throw rocks, too, but that doesn't make a rock an
air-to-air weapon. That's determined by what the weapon was designed
for and intended to do. If the MG on an SH-60 was intended as an
air-to-air weapon it wouldn't look as it does in the picture at the
URL below.

::http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GAU-16_.50_MG.jpg is a nice example
:f the US version:
::
::http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/...MediaFile.6900 shows a Lynx
::with two Skua and a M3M.
:
:Yes, another fine set of air-to-air weapons. NOT.
:
:So, a .50" machine gun can't shoot down a UAV?

I said that where, Paul?

I know it's hard for you, but do try to read the actual words instead
of making **** up you want me to have said and then pretending that
your delusions are reality.

:Curious claim. Do you have any evidence for that, or is this another of
:your bold baseless assertions?

Yes, it is a curious claim. The most curious thing about it is that
you're lying about my having said it.

You that bored out at sea, Paul?

::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 amazes me is how poorly some of you ENGLISH seem to be at
:comprehension of your mother tongue.
:
:Nice evasion. Can you explain why your own navy is exercising at a task
:you've claim is impossible, implausible and without reason?

Go back and read the words, Paul. No evasion required.

::Certainly could, Fred. See, instead of coming in at ~150 knots of
:vertake, 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.
:
:And a worse weapon used in a non-intended way.
:
:Some of us are less closed-minded and more adaptable than you, Fred.

No doubt. Some of you are also stupider and more up your own
backsides than I am.

:As usual, Paul hears
:and sees what he want to and disregards the rest.
:
:I'm just participating in the exercise, what do I know?

Not much, apparently.

::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, I see. Now we're to the usual Paul Adam game where you just make
:**** up and then pretend that I've said it.
:
:"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" writes Fred.

It's your sort of rhetorical question, Paul. You should be able to
recognize the tactic.

:What part of that is expressing confidence in the gunner's ability to
:hit a man-size target at fifty metres' range?

Let me get this straight. You want to form up on an unmanned vehicle
that is ostensibly hostile and fly stupidly along 50 meters out in a
helicopter. And what do you do when it turns into you (other than
**** yourself and die in a ball of flames, I mean).

:Yeah, about what's expected from you, Paul.
:
:Quite so - more Fred foolishness exposed.

You mean more Paul lies about what he claims happened.

:What are you going to insist is impossible next?

You telling the truth. Experience seems to teach that that is at
least pretty unlikely, if not outright impossible.

:Oh, and who told you that the MGs only had iron sights? Or that they
::were ineffective for anything other than ground fire?)
:
:Oh, and who told you they had something other than 'iron sights' (look
:at your own picture - what do YOU see him using for a sight).
:
:The Lynx Tactical Development desk officer. (He works two legs down from
:my office.)

And US carriers have how many such aircraft on board?

[Remember the origin of the discussion, Paul - the ridiculous idea
that a US carrier "scrambled 2 helicopters and 4 jet fighters" to
engage an Iranian UAV.]

:One of the trials objectives is testing the newly-procured thermal
:sights for the M3M guns in a variety of roles; the guns were quickly
:acquired as a UOR for Telic, and having proved highly effective the
:improved sights were procured in slower time.

Yes, well, as I said, you lot probably don't have any choice, not
having a real navy with real airplanes to do this job.

:Where did I say anything remotely resembling that "they were
:ineffective for anything other than ground fire"?
:
:"a weapon never intended to fire at anything but the ground" and "And a
:worse weapon used in a non-intended way" would certainly seem to
:qualify.

Only to those unable to read. Given the choice, Paul, I'd rather
engage an air target with a 20mm cannon intended for engaging air
targets. Your mileage apparently varies, but then I'm not impressed
with your analytical skills to this point anyway.

:But then Fred seems to forget that the heavy machine gun started out
:with the German 13mm TuF, or "Tank und Flieger", which was designed with
:the role of shooting at ~100kt air targets in mind.

And if this was the beginning of the 20th century and we were using
such a purpose-designed thing for the purpose for which it was
intended I would probably be using different words. You, on the other
hand, would still be trying to lie about what is said to you.

:Don't look now, but you're already starting to make **** up and then
:lie about my having said it again, Paul.
:
:Sorry, Fred, but whining about being caught out does you no good.

And apparently pointing out to you that you're lying yet again also
does no good, as you just keep doing it.

::You've got an extraordinarily ill-tempered manner of saying "I was
::wrong".
:
:And you've got an entirely ordinary way of lying about what I've said.
:I categorize it as 'ordinary' based on your past history of similar
:behaviour.
:
:Meaning, Fred is hoping that if he flings enough **** he can hide his
:tracks.

No, meaning that you're making **** up and then claiming I said it. In
civilized countries this deliberate promulgation of falsehood is
referred to as a 'lie' and those who engage in it as 'liars'.

Things are apparently different where you are.

:It's only expected from you by now, Paul.
:
on't like being proved wrong, do you?

No, I don't like being lied about. If you want to make **** up and
then pretend that I've said it so that you can 'prove it wrong', why,
you just go right ahead.

All it says, however, is that you're a liar.

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

In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
:So, Fred, do naval helicopters intercept some types of aerial category
r not?

No, they do not. 'Intercept' implies they do something other than
watch once they get out there.

And your source for saying that a M3M-equipped Lynx can't engage a light
aircraft or UAV is...?

Be detailed and specific, please, you're arguing against current
doctrine.

:You claimed not and said the idea was ludicrous: I'm seariding in an
:exercise where they plan to do just that.

Yes, of course you are.

Yes, Fred, I am. Were you too busy ranting, to notice where I work these
days?

:What do I not "figure out" apart from your curious cocktail of arrogance
:and ignorance?

Try reading the words, Paul.

I did. You say that helicopters can't intercept slow low-flying air
contacts and have no capability against them.

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.

:Not air-to-air weapons, Paul. Air-to-air interceptors carry
:air-to-air weapons so that they can, well, INTERCEPT and not just
:stand by and watch.
:
:So a .50" machine gun isn't able to engage aircraft, Fred?

I said that where, Paul?

So helicopters actually *do* carry weapons usable against some air
targets, then?

Hint: I can throw rocks, too, but that doesn't make a rock an
air-to-air weapon. That's determined by what the weapon was designed
for and intended to do. If the MG on an SH-60 was intended as an
air-to-air weapon it wouldn't look as it does in the picture at the
URL below.

And nobody - at least not in the RN - is suggesting it's an effective
response to fast jets.

But it'll do a good job on light aircraft and most UAVs - the "slow low
flyer" category that, oddly enough, the fast-moving pointy-nose crowd
have some difficulty with.

:So, a .50" machine gun can't shoot down a UAV?

I said that where, Paul?

"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.

I know it's hard for you, but do try to read the actual words instead
of making **** up you want me to have said and then pretending that
your delusions are reality.

Yes, yes, Fred, of course. Just keep on babbling insults and hope nobody
notices that you're digging yourself deeper all the time.

You claimed it's impossible for helicopters to respond to UAVs or other
slow low fliers, I say it is. Apparently that makes me a liar and
exercises testing the practice prove... that you're right and I'm lying.

Just keep on screaming "Liar!" Everyone believes you. You're completely
credible, being so famous for your stability, politeness and reason.

:Curious claim. Do you have any evidence for that, or is this another of
:your bold baseless assertions?

Yes, it is a curious claim. The most curious thing about it is that
you're lying about my having said it.

"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?

:Nice evasion. Can you explain why your own navy is exercising at a task
:you've claim is impossible, implausible and without reason?

Go back and read the words, Paul. No evasion required.

So, is the USN sending helicopters to exercise against "slow low fliers"
proof 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.

:Some of us are less closed-minded and more adaptable than you, Fred.

No doubt. Some of you are also stupider and more up your own
backsides than I am.

No, I doubt that, you'd be almost unbeatable in that regard.

I hope this makes you proud.

:"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" writes Fred.

It's your sort of rhetorical question, Paul. You should be able to
recognize the tactic.

Oh, so now it *is* what you said, but you didn't actually *mean* it.

Did you say it or not? Well, obviously you did.

So, can a USN doorgunner hit a co-velocity man-size target at fifty
yards - or not?

:What part of that is expressing confidence in the gunner's ability to
:hit a man-size target at fifty metres' range?

Let me get this straight. You want to form up on an unmanned vehicle
that is ostensibly hostile and fly stupidly along 50 meters out in a
helicopter. And what do you do when it turns into you (other than
**** yourself and die in a ball of flames, I mean).

Stop shifting the argument, Fred. You claimed it was impossible to hit
the target in those circumstances. Now, you're trying to claim it's "too
dangerous" to get close to it in case it does something unpredictable
(although you have no problem with fast jets making point-blank passes
and assuming the target will plod along on its base course throughout).

If it's that dangerous for a helicopter to close, why is it any safer
for a fast jet to make repeated slow passes at point-blank range?

:The Lynx Tactical Development desk officer. (He works two legs down from
:my office.)

And US carriers have how many such aircraft on board?

None - perhaps this is why they're coming, to see how the RN manage and
check whether there's anything the SH-60 community might want to borrow
from us. Ain't teamwork great? Isn't it useful that not everyone in the
US is as blinkered, arrogant, ignorant and dishonest as Fred?

[Remember the origin of the discussion, Paul - the ridiculous idea
that a US carrier "scrambled 2 helicopters and 4 jet fighters" to
engage an Iranian UAV.]

Remember the origin of the discussion, Fred - "helicopters don't
intercept air targets".

They can, they do, I have no idea at all whether they did in the Gulf
recently and the USN participation in NW063 predates the incident.

:One of the trials objectives is testing the newly-procured thermal
:sights for the M3M guns in a variety of roles; the guns were quickly
:acquired as a UOR for Telic, and having proved highly effective the
:improved sights were procured in slower time.

Yes, well, as I said, you lot probably don't have any choice, not
having a real navy with real airplanes to do this job.

In other words, Fred is upset at - yet again - making a bold claim
that's turned out to be thoroughly wrong.


:"a weapon never intended to fire at anything but the ground" and "And a
:worse weapon used in a non-intended way" would certainly seem to
:qualify.

Only to those unable to read. Given the choice, Paul, I'd rather
engage an air target with a 20mm cannon intended for engaging air
targets.

But then you may not be given the choice, and then what do you do? Panic
and die because there's no fast-mover air available? Or consider an
organic response?


Your mileage apparently varies, but then I'm not impressed
with your analytical skills to this point anyway.

Well, Fred, I have to say... sob that... sniffle I'm really, really
*hurt* by that.

I mean, I just *live* for your good opinion. I don't care what my
colleagues and friends think of my professional skills, the good regard
of my oppos at Fleet matter *nothing* to me, respect from the Navy I set
at naught, compared to keeping your respect and esteem.



Get over yourself, you clueless twit, this is only Usenet. You've
joyfully filed yourself in with erudite idiots like Tiglath - fond of
rhetorical flourishes and bold statements, boasting of deep knowledge,
yet never once able to just say "really? Damn! Didn't know that! Live
and learn!" when their sweeping statements turn out to be incorrect.

You picked your home and your peers, be happy with the results.

:But then Fred seems to forget that the heavy machine gun started out
:with the German 13mm TuF, or "Tank und Flieger", which was designed with
:the role of shooting at ~100kt air targets in mind.

And if this was the beginning of the 20th century and we were using
such a purpose-designed thing for the purpose for which it was
intended I would probably be using different words.

Like, shooting at small slow ~100kt prop-driven aircraft? Those were the
targets for the TuF.

You, on the other
hand, would still be trying to lie about what is said to you.

The UAVs of concern are small 100kt prop jobs.

Poor Fred, so fixated on being right, so determined that he can never be
wrong...

:Sorry, Fred, but whining about being caught out does you no good.

And apparently pointing out to you that you're lying yet again also
does no good, as you just keep doing it.

Yes, yes, yes, "lie" drops so swift and easy from your lips, doesn't it?

Where, exactly, have I lied, Fred?

You claimed helicopters can't intercept slow low flying air contacts. I
pointed out that they can and they do.

You claimed that helicopters can't carry weapons effective against slow
low-flying air contacts. I pointed out that they can and they do.

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.

:Meaning, Fred is hoping that if he flings enough **** he can hide his
:tracks.

No, meaning that you're making **** up and then claiming I said it.

Or, quoting what you said - which apparently becomes a lie because it
was "my sort of rhetorical question". Poor Fred can't even bear to take
responsibility for his own words any more.

In
civilized countries this deliberate promulgation of falsehood is
referred to as a 'lie' and those who engage in it as 'liars'.

In civilised countries, calling a man a liar used to have a simple
resolution.

Fort Widley courtyard, 0700 on the Saturday of your choice (if I refuse
more than three then you win by default). Quiet, open, easy to find and
if bothered we can claim to be re-enactionists practising, plus it's got
a very nice view. Either bring your own sword or I can lend you one.
Third blood wins, since otherwise the winner would have too many
problems with the local constabulary.

Or should I go the modern route, and sue you for libel? I'd need to see
if there's a bloodsucker^H^H^H^H solicitor willing to take the case on a
no-win-no-fee basis, of course, but I fear you effortlessly meet the
test for 'strict libel' under UK law.


Or do I laugh at the sad little man whose endless, predictable reaction
to being caught in error is to shriek "Liar! Liar! Liar!" until he
scurries to the comfort of his killfile?

Which would you prefer, Fred? You love to scream "liar", how do you want
your chance to prove it?

:It's only expected from you by now, Paul.
:
on't like being proved wrong, do you?

No, I don't like being lied about.

In what way have I lied about you, Fred?

You seem reckless, even joyous, in your endless dishonesty about me, but
what have I said about you that is false?

If you want to make **** up and
then pretend that I've said it so that you can 'prove it wrong', why,
you just go right ahead.

Don't need to, Fred, I just have to quote your own words. When I do, you
claim you "didn't mean it" or "it was rhetorical", of course, but I
don't need to make **** up to make you look petulant and foolish - you
do that all by yourself.

All it says, however, is that you're a liar.

Of course I am. Will you back those words with a sword in your hand?
Will I see you in court? Or will you just hide in your killfile?

Turkey trots to water, the world wonders.

--
Paul J. Adam

wrote:
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.

What would the downwash from a Lynx at 170kts. do to a UAV,
particularly a small, lightly built one? If you put it into an
"unusual attitude" is the software sophisticated enough to deal with
that (particularly the "autonomous UAV)? Are they sufficiently
stressed to handle the airframe loads generated by a recovery from an
"unusual attitude"?

I've seen some of the airframe damage that "thumping" can cause (at
least one cracked windscreen on an E-2, compliments of an F-4
afterburner). While the Chinese proved that trying "thump" an EP-3 is
not a producitve enterprise how about something small and lightly
built?

Do we even need to shoot the *******s?
No. Unless the *******s mount some sort of sensor to detect a close-by
helicopter or rapidly closing fighter and decide to shoot something
nasty its way. Minimal range (couple of hundred meters) will do. Don't
even need to mount it on all UAVs ($$ reasons), just on say 20%, so
your helicopter/fighter will learn soon enough it's not wise to come
too close. The warhead does not even need to be heavy enough to ensure
kill, just to make considerable damage/mission kill probable.
Alternatively, make the primary weapon of the UAV to be a versaitile
short range missile(s) and reuse it for such self-defence as well.

Will mess up also with your 'gunning' them down discussion, if you had
to shoot at them from far away.

Acoustically detecting that a helicopter is nearby is really not that
tough...
For the really short range you need (to prevent a fighter to destroy
you by its wake turbulence) there might be several simple and cheap
detection/targetting methods available.

Stefan
Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

On 3 Jun 2006 16:31:20 -0700, wrote:


Do we even need to shoot the *******s?
No. Unless the *******s mount some sort of sensor to detect a close-by
helicopter or rapidly closing fighter and decide to shoot something
nasty its way. Minimal range (couple of hundred meters) will do. Don't
even need to mount it on all UAVs ($$ reasons), just on say 20%, so
your helicopter/fighter will learn soon enough it's not wise to come
too close. The warhead does not even need to be heavy enough to ensure
kill, just to make considerable damage/mission kill probable.
Alternatively, make the primary weapon of the UAV to be a versaitile
short range missile(s) and reuse it for such self-defence as well.

Is not your small, light, versitile, cheap (so you can launch a lot of
them and confound and confuse sensors) now becoming large, heavy,
versitile, and expensive?

Will mess up also with your 'gunning' them down discussion, if you had
to shoot at them from far away.

Still an option, I would think.

Acoustically detecting that a helicopter is nearby is really not that
tough...

True enough.

For the really short range you need (to prevent a fighter to destroy
you by its wake turbulence) there might be several simple and cheap
detection/targetting methods available.

But every pound you use for self defense is a pound less for sensors
or offensive capability. Where do the lines cross?

Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

wrote:
On 3 Jun 2006 16:31:20 -0700, wrote:
[snip]
Alternatively, make the primary weapon of the UAV to be a versaitile
short range missile(s) and reuse it for such self-defence as well.

Is not your small, light, versitile, cheap (so you can launch a lot of
them and confound and confuse sensors) now becoming large, heavy,
versitile, and expensive?
Yes and no, see below...

[snip]
For the really short range you need (to prevent a fighter to destroy
you by its wake turbulence) there might be several simple and cheap
detection/targetting methods available.

But every pound you use for self defense is a pound less for sensors
or offensive capability. Where do the lines cross?
You might want to have your primary armament to be a small short range
missile(s) - to shoot it out of the CIWS guns range. With a proper
sensor (which the missile will need anyway), the missile might be good
enough agains helos or nearby fighters. Reusing it for self-defense
just seems obvious.

Why you want at least basic self defense? You need a system that is
not easily countered , otherwise its pointless. Slow and light UAVs can
be gunned down from a helo or brought down by wake turbulence of a
fighter. Unless you field really overhelming numbers of them (and/or
make them really stealthy), you need to prevent those tactics. Full
fighter-like self defense is unrealistic, but detecting and shooting at
big heavy noisy objects like helos/fighters which are really nearby
(say withing 300m) might not be that hard. Especially if you already
have missile(s) that can fly that far (and further) on board.

For the same reason the UAVs need to be hardened against EM, so
pointing radar at them won't fry them. Doable, but close attention to
detail needed.

Similarly, you need them to be able to be resistant to laser blinding
their sensors. No clue how to do that, but military men (and not only
in US) probably have some ideas ...

Not saying it is too easy, but it might all be doable within next 7-10
years by a country like Iran/India/China (those countries do have
competent engineers/software developers).
Note that any of those countries can easily throw $100million for a
project like this, and with thier salaries and general prices, that
would buy much more then the same $100milion in US. The UAVs are the
craze of today anyway and I am sure all of them are doing R&D in them.

Stefan


Bill Kambic
Haras Lucero, Kingston, TN
Mangalarga Marchador: Uma Raça, Uma Paixão

"Paul J. Adam" wrote:

:In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
:"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
::So, Fred, do naval helicopters intercept some types of aerial category
:r not?
:
:No, they do not. 'Intercept' implies they do something other than
:watch once they get out there.
:
: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?

: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.

As I've already pointed out, YOU probably don't have any choice in
this.

::You claimed not and said the idea was ludicrous: I'm seariding in an
::exercise where they plan to do just that.
:
:Yes, of course you are.
:
:Yes, Fred, I am. Were you too busy ranting, to notice where I work these
:days?

Yes, of course you are.

::What do I not "figure out" apart from your curious cocktail of arrogance
::and ignorance?
:
:Try reading the words, Paul.
:
: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. I
know that second part is hard for you, but try.

I never said any such thing. You're just lying yet again.

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.

: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.

::Not air-to-air weapons, Paul. Air-to-air interceptors carry
::air-to-air weapons so that they can, well, INTERCEPT and not just
::stand by and watch.
::
::So a .50" machine gun isn't able to engage aircraft, Fred?
:
:I said that where, Paul?
:
:So helicopters actually *do* carry weapons usable against some air
:targets, then?

Paul, *I* sometimes carry weapons usable against some air targets.
That doesn't make them anti-aircraft weapons.

:Hint: I can throw rocks, too, but that doesn't make a rock an
:air-to-air weapon. That's determined by what the weapon was designed
:for and intended to do. If the MG on an SH-60 was intended as an
:air-to-air weapon it wouldn't look as it does in the picture at the
:URL below.
:
:And nobody - at least not in the RN - is suggesting it's an effective
:response to fast jets.
:
:But it'll do a good job on light aircraft and most UAVs - the "slow low
:flyer" category that, oddly enough, the fast-moving pointy-nose crowd
:have some difficulty with.
:
::So, a .50" machine gun can't shoot down a UAV?
:
:I said that where, Paul?
:
:"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.

:I know it's hard for you, but do try to read the actual words instead
:of making **** up you want me to have said and then pretending that
:your delusions are reality.
:
:Yes, yes, Fred, of course. Just keep on babbling insults and hope nobody
:notices that you're digging yourself deeper all the time.
:
:You claimed it's impossible for helicopters to respond to UAVs or other
:slow low fliers, I say it is. Apparently that makes me a liar and
:exercises testing the practice prove... that you're right and I'm lying.
:
:Just keep on screaming "Liar!" Everyone believes you. You're completely
:credible, being so famous for your stability, politeness and reason.
:
::Curious claim. Do you have any evidence for that, or is this another of
::your bold baseless assertions?
:
:Yes, it is a curious claim. The most curious thing about it is that
:you're lying about my having said it.
:
:"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.

Is Paul a liar, or ... well, that seems to be the only possibility,
doesn't it?

::Nice evasion. Can you explain why your own navy is exercising at a task
::you've claim is impossible, implausible and without reason?
:
:Go back and read the words, Paul. No evasion required.
:
: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?

::Some of us are less closed-minded and more adaptable than you, Fred.
:
:No doubt. Some of you are also stupider and more up your own
:backsides than I am.
:
:No, I doubt that, you'd be almost unbeatable in that regard.
:
:I hope this makes you proud.

Poor Paul. Working SO hard to pick a fight. What is it, Paul?
Current job boring? Marriage on the rocks? Jealousy against someone
who can actually succeed in private industry? Nobody else will talk
to you? What?

::"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" writes Fred.
:
:It's your sort of rhetorical question, Paul. You should be able to
:recognize the tactic.
:
:Oh, so now it *is* what you said, but you didn't actually *mean* it.
:
id you say it or not? Well, obviously you did.
:
:So, can a USN doorgunner hit a co-velocity man-size target at fifty
:yards - or not?

Of course they 'can', Paul. I can hit low flying airplanes with a
handgun, too, but it's not a very bright choice of system to use and
that doesn't make my pistol an anti-aircraft gun any more than it
makes a helicopter an interceptor.

::What part of that is expressing confidence in the gunner's ability to
::hit a man-size target at fifty metres' range?
:
:Let me get this straight. You want to form up on an unmanned vehicle
:that is ostensibly hostile and fly stupidly along 50 meters out in a
:helicopter. And what do you do when it turns into you (other than
:**** yourself and die in a ball of flames, I mean).
:
:Stop shifting the argument, Fred.

Stop lying about what's been said, Paul.

:You claimed it was impossible to hit
:the target in those circumstances.

Go back and read it again. I made no such claim. I merely asked an
idiot a question to 'set the hook'.

:Now, you're trying to claim it's "too
:dangerous" to get close to it in case it does something unpredictable

Now where did I say that, Paul? Just another question.

although you have no problem with fast jets making point-blank passes

'Point blank' for a 20mm cannon is just a BIT further away than 50
meters and we're not talking about a fighter jet just noodling around
alongside.

:and assuming the target will plod along on its base course throughout).

Lying AGAIN, Paul. Where did I say that?

:If it's that dangerous for a helicopter to close, why is it any safer
:for a fast jet to make repeated slow passes at point-blank range?

Work the math, Paul. Come on, you used to be an engineer. How many
meters per second is the UAV traveling and how many (how few,
actually) seconds does that give your helo to respond when it rolls
and turns into you? Keep in mind that helos do NOT respond
immediately to controls like fixed wing vehicles do.

Put a fast mover 50 meters away from your little UAV and he can just
blow through in the mach and let the turbulence shoot it down. He's
not going to be out there noodling about as a target.

Remember, your attack method for a helicopter REQUIRES you to do that.

::The Lynx Tactical Development desk officer. (He works two legs down from
::my office.)
:
:And US carriers have how many such aircraft on board?
:
:None - perhaps this is why they're coming, to see how the RN manage and
:check whether there's anything the SH-60 community might want to borrow
:from us.

Perhaps, but then we routinely play with all sorts of smaller, less
capable forces.

: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?

:[Remember the origin of the discussion, Paul - the ridiculous idea
:that a US carrier "scrambled 2 helicopters and 4 jet fighters" to
:engage an Iranian UAV.]
:
: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?

:They can, they do, I have no idea at all whether they did in the Gulf
:recently and the USN participation in NW063 predates the incident.
:
::One of the trials objectives is testing the newly-procured thermal
::sights for the M3M guns in a variety of roles; the guns were quickly
::acquired as a UOR for Telic, and having proved highly effective the
::improved sights were procured in slower time.
:
:Yes, well, as I said, you lot probably don't have any choice, not
:having a real navy with real airplanes to do this job.
:
:In other words, Fred is upset at - yet again - making a bold claim
:that's turned out to be thoroughly wrong.

In other words, Paul is bored at his pitiful life and has nothing
better to do than try to pick fights.

That's a pretty poor form of Usenet life, Paul.

::"a weapon never intended to fire at anything but the ground" and "And a
::worse weapon used in a non-intended way" would certainly seem to
::qualify.
:
:Only to those unable to read. Given the choice, Paul, I'd rather
:engage an air target with a 20mm cannon intended for engaging air
:targets.
:
:But then you may not be given the choice, and then what do you do? Panic
:and die because there's no fast-mover air available? Or consider an
rganic response?

Oh, we're talking DESPERATION measures now? Try going back to the
original context again, Paul. AIRCRAFT CARRIER, remember? Ours
generally have a few vehicles available with real air-to-air systems
on them.

:Your mileage apparently varies, but then I'm not impressed
:with your analytical skills to this point anyway.
:
:Well, Fred, I have to say... sob that... sniffle I'm really, really
:*hurt* by that.
:
:I mean, I just *live* for your good opinion. I don't care what my
:colleagues and friends think of my professional skills, the good regard
f my oppos at Fleet matter *nothing* to me, respect from the Navy I set
:at naught, compared to keeping your respect and esteem.

Well, now you have some idea of just how important YOUR opinion is to
ME, Paul.

:Get over yourself, you clueless twit, this is only Usenet. You've
:joyfully filed yourself in with erudite idiots like Tiglath - fond of
:rhetorical flourishes and bold statements, boasting of deep knowledge,
:yet never once able to just say "really? Damn! Didn't know that! Live
:and learn!" when their sweeping statements turn out to be incorrect.

Oddly, I was just going to compare your tactics to Tiglet myself. Grab
the out of context quote and worry it like a terrier with a bone, all
the while distorting and engaging in outright lies about what's
actually been said.

:You picked your home and your peers, be happy with the results.

Yes, you did, and you're precisely that sort of Usenet life, Paul.
Your life so pathetic that all you can do is try to pick fights.

::But then Fred seems to forget that the heavy machine gun started out
::with the German 13mm TuF, or "Tank und Flieger", which was designed with
::the role of shooting at ~100kt air targets in mind.
:
:And if this was the beginning of the 20th century and we were using
:such a purpose-designed thing for the purpose for which it was
:intended I would probably be using different words.
:
: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?

Gee, Britain must be building all those tanks just to bust trench
lines then.

snort

:You, on the other
:hand, would still be trying to lie about what is said to you.
:
: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. Next you can accuse me
of getting mad.

Poor Paul, just another pathetic little Usenet ******.

::Sorry, Fred, but whining about being caught out does you no good.
:
:And apparently pointing out to you that you're lying yet again also
:does no good, as you just keep doing it.
:
:Yes, yes, yes, "lie" drops so swift and easy from your lips, doesn't it?

Only because you do it so frequently.

:Where, exactly, have I lied, Fred?

I've pointed them out as we go, Paul.

:You claimed helicopters can't intercept slow low flying air contacts.

I made no such claim. You're lying again.

:I pointed out that they can and they do.
:
:You claimed that helicopters can't carry weapons effective against slow
:low-flying air contacts.

I made no such claim. You're lying again.

:I pointed out that they can and they do.

Are you starting to see a pattern here, Paul?

: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. 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.

::Meaning, Fred is hoping that if he flings enough **** he can hide his
::tracks.
:
:No, meaning that you're making **** up and then claiming I said it.
:
:Or, quoting what you said - which apparently becomes a lie because it
:was "my sort of rhetorical question". Poor Fred can't even bear to take
:responsibility for his own words any more.

Paul, only pathetic losers like you have or want to take the time to
go sorting back through articles to try to find things to take out of
context and wank on about.

:In
:civilized countries this deliberate promulgation of falsehood is
:referred to as a 'lie' and those who engage in it as 'liars'.
:
:In civilised countries, calling a man a liar used to have a simple
:resolution.

How would you know?

:Fort Widley courtyard, 0700 on the Saturday of your choice (if I refuse
:more than three then you win by default). Quiet, open, easy to find and
:if bothered we can claim to be re-enactionists practising, plus it's got
:a very nice view. Either bring your own sword or I can lend you one.
:Third blood wins, since otherwise the winner would have too many
roblems with the local constabulary.

Oh, I see. You claim to know about what is the practice in civilized
countries and then think that the challenger gets to choose location,
time, and weapon?

Yeah, that's your sort of 'civilized', all right.

:Or should I go the modern route, and sue you for libel? I'd need to see
:if there's a bloodsucker^H^H^H^H solicitor willing to take the case on a
:no-win-no-fee basis, of course, but I fear you effortlessly meet the
:test for 'strict libel' under UK law.

Typical. Just another sad way your ilk try to 'win'. What next?
Threaten to write to my ISP? Threaten to talk to my company?

Pathetic, Paul.

:Or do I laugh at the sad little man whose endless, predictable reaction
:to being caught in error is to shriek "Liar! Liar! Liar!" until he
:scurries to the comfort of his killfile?

Uh, don't look now, but YOU were the one killfiling ME most recently,
Paul. Of course you now mention killfiles in a forlorn effort to keep
your pathetic little fight going. Unfortunately for you, your
bleating has no influence on my deciding to killfile you.

: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.

Such counterfactual claims are 'lies', Paul, and those who
deliberately emit such counterfactual claims are 'liars'.

::It's only expected from you by now, Paul.
::
:on't like being proved wrong, do you?
:
:No, I don't like being lied about.
:
:In what way have I lied about you, Fred?
:
:You seem reckless, even joyous, in your endless dishonesty about me, but
:what have I said about you that is false?

See above. I know this is your sad little species idea of 'sport'.
It's why you don't matter.

:If you want to make **** up and
:then pretend that I've said it so that you can 'prove it wrong', why,
:you just go right ahead.
:
on't need to, Fred, I just have to quote your own words. When I do, you
:claim you "didn't mean it" or "it was rhetorical", of course, but I
:don't need to make **** up to make you look petulant and foolish - you
:do that all by yourself.

Yes, all you have to do is try to paper over by fixating on one out of
context quote and try to throw up enough dust.

Pathetic, Paul.

:All it says, however, is that you're a liar.
:
:Of course I am. Will you back those words with a sword in your hand?
:Will I see you in court? Or will you just hide in your killfile?
:
:Turkey trots to water, the world wonders.

Wank on, Paul. Wank on.

It's apparently all you've got in life, after all.

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