Defense against UAV's

:
:Sorry, Fred, but you're condemned from your own mouth.

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

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

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

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

Jesus Christ!...will you two please stop fighting in the house?

We all know that you're both experts, this crap isn't enjoyable,
isn't impressing anyone and makes you both look like fools...

--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

Guy Alcala wrote:


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

Good day.

Guy

Yep...
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:

In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
:I'd like to keep the options open. Come in from above (where the sensors
:can't see you) and see if the downwash takes it out: if not, then donate
:some half-inch Raufoss at 1,100 rounds a minute.

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

And I'd like to give the gunner a larger target and more time to fire -
plus not everyone, not even the USN, has a fast jet in attendance on
every unit at all times, but many of those units have helicopters.

[Paul might want to look up the firing rate for that GAU-16 on the
SH-60 (slower - only 750 RPM), the ammo supply (100 round can), and
the intended purpose of said weapon ("anti-surface warfare and
anti-light armor weapon").

Fred might want to look up the stats for the M3M - 1,100rpm and a
600-round feed - before making bold, sweeping statements. Not every
naval helicopter is a SH-60 and not every doorgun is a GAU-16.

This MIGHT give him some clue about why
our opinions about how to do this differ - but, knowing Paul, it
probably won't.]

Just confirms the narrowness of Fred's mind - if he doesn't think it's
possible then it can't be done, regardless of whether it's actually
happening or not.


Some helos also have pintle-mounted manually aimed 7.62 miniguns(gatlings)
with a high rate of fire,and they would also be effective in downing a
low&slow UAV.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Jim Yanik wrote:

[SNIP]

Some helos also have pintle-mounted manually aimed 7.62 miniguns(gatlings)
with a high rate of fire,and they would also be effective in downing a
low&slow UAV.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

Yep, check this out:

http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/...s_20052123.asp

Click the link below the photo to play the video.

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

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

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

I didn't write the article that I quoted and I tend to agree with you
that low observability was not even on the agenda. The point is that
even the Mosquito which was constructed almost entirely of wood, while
certainly giving less of a radar return than say, a Boston or Wellington
or even P38, STILL gave a significant radar return to the low efficiency
radar of the day...so wood isn't the answer for UAVs...

....Ken

"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message
...

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

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

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


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

Ken Young

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

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

Time for the contribution of Ogden Nash to be recognized:

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

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


Nor Canadian woodwork, but they are migrating north as global warming
moderates our climate. But then, we have always had carpenter ants
with us, and they are rotten little buggers.

I think my grandfather was conscious of what a marvellous material
wood is; his neighbours in Haddenham, however, were rather appalled by
his propensity to use it for structures to house people. It's all a
matter of how you mitigate the risk, I suppose.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

Jim Yanik wrote:

:"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
:
:
: In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
:"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
::I'd like to keep the options open. Come in from above (where the sensors
::can't see you) and see if the downwash takes it out: if not, then donate
::some half-inch Raufoss at 1,100 rounds a minute.
:
:So would I. The difference is that I want to use some 20mm shells at
:6,000 RPM.
:
: And I'd like to give the gunner a larger target and more time to fire -
: plus not everyone, not even the USN, has a fast jet in attendance on
: every unit at all times, but many of those units have helicopters.
:
:[Paul might want to look up the firing rate for that GAU-16 on the
:SH-60 (slower - only 750 RPM), the ammo supply (100 round can), and
:the intended purpose of said weapon ("anti-surface warfare and
:anti-light armor weapon").
:
: Fred might want to look up the stats for the M3M - 1,100rpm and a
: 600-round feed - before making bold, sweeping statements. Not every
: naval helicopter is a SH-60 and not every doorgun is a GAU-16.
:
:This MIGHT give him some clue about why
:our opinions about how to do this differ - but, knowing Paul, it
:probably won't.]
:
: Just confirms the narrowness of Fred's mind - if he doesn't think it's
: possible then it can't be done, regardless of whether it's actually
: happening or not.
:
:Some helos also have pintle-mounted manually aimed 7.62 miniguns(gatlings)
:with a high rate of fire,and they would also be effective in downing a
:low&slow UAV.

That's one of the other things that an SH-60 might get instead of the
GAU-16. Note that it, too, is intended for attacking GROUND targets.
There is no weapon of which I am aware that is cleared for the SH-60
that is intended for use against air targets. Most SH-60s don't have
ANY gun fitted.

I'll again note that context matters, and the context of the
discussion was the Iranian claim that a US carrier 'scrambled to
helicopters and 4 fighters' to intercept their UAV.

It's a preposterous statement.

--
You have never lived until you have almost died.
Life has a special meaning that the protected
will never know.

Henry J Cobb wrote:
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
Perhaps, and if the Iranians or *other* future US Navy oponent wanted
to use UAVs soley for Transport/ Recon / and on call CAS then they will
probably be prop driven. However if speed, stealth and ability to
successfully strike US Naval forces is a design goal, then other forms
of propolsion are likely. Since many jets are built for civilian
markets and turbofans come in many sizes for smaller RC type aircraft,
it is certainly not unreasonable to expect to see them experimented
with by interested third parties.
PAIN
P.S. Before you try, I did not say either was a best option, only that
they are options, therefore muting the "prop makes big radar returns"
comment. Thank you, fly your Vulture selves elsewhere.

wrote:

Henry J Cobb wrote:

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

Perhaps, and if the Iranians or *other* future US Navy oponent wanted
to use UAVs soley for Transport/ Recon / and on call CAS then they will
probably be prop driven. However if speed, stealth and ability to
successfully strike US Naval forces is a design goal, then other forms
of propolsion are likely. Since many jets are built for civilian
markets and turbofans come in many sizes for smaller RC type aircraft,
it is certainly not unreasonable to expect to see them experimented
with by interested third parties.
PAIN
P.S. Before you try, I did not say either was a best option, only that
they are options, therefore muting the "prop makes big radar returns"
comment. Thank you, fly your Vulture selves elsewhere.


Jets have other possibilities, too.

I remember the first time I saw a stealth fighters. I was driving from
Las Cruces to Alamogordo on route 70. There is a very long straight
stretch and off in the distance I saw what appeared to be large birds
flying around. They did not move like any airplane I'd ever seen, but
where in a regular pattern. After a while I got closer and realized
they were jets doing touch-n-goes at Holloman.

One really interesting approach might be to make a UAV look like a bird
in flight. The, even if spotted, lookouts might not fully appreciate
what they are looking at.

John Mullen

wrote:
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

Grr.. not that it matters since this has long become a mute point
but... Not the SAAF but the Rhodisian AF and certainly not a Zimbabwe
(Rhodesia became Zimbabwe) Defender, but one of the countries
surrounding Rhodesia. The account is in a book titled "The Chopper Boys
of Africa". Mostly a coffee table picture book, but the account should
be verifiable if anyone cares.
Pain
I don't, so don't ask