wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
:
: Hint #2: Helos are too slow to deal with even a slow UAV. The
: leading edge of the rotor goes transonic at relatively slow forward
: speeds.
:
:UAVs vary a lot in speed - this article
:http://www.armscontrol.ru/UAV/mirsad1.htm concerning a UAV flight over
:Israel, has some data which shows that some of them fly as slow as 75
:mph. The Swiss Ranger, which seems typical, is quoted as flying at
:between 55 and 130 knots. These would certainly be within the
:capabilities of a helo to catch.

Only if he starts from fairly close to begin with.

: Hint #3: A fighter with a 20mm Vulcan will flat mess up a "small,
: slow UAV" and actually has a radar on board so that he can see it and
: some actual training on how to do an air intercept, neither of which a
: helicopter has.
:
:Always assuming that the radar is capable of getting a lock on the UAV.

No such assumption is necessary. It's not like in the movies.

:If not, his chance of scoring a hit is remote - the speed differential
:is so huge that he could do no more than 'spray and pray'.

Hint #1: What do you think the landing speed of a jet fighter is?

Hint #2: Guns work off the pilot's eyeballs.

Hint #3: If 'speed differential' was such a huge problem, all air
forces would be operating Piper Cubs as penetrating bombers. They
aren't.

: :until
: :something more sophisticated can be developed.
:
: It doesn't take anything "sophisticated" to deal with this threat. If
: it's really small and really slow, just blow past it in the mach and
: let the shockwave trash it.
:
:That might do the trick, as long as you've got air support handy (not
:all warhips are aircraft carriers, or have one on call).
:
:The basic problem is that naval self-defence systems are designed to
:deal with large, fast objects which produce a nice big radar echo. We
:know that they have problems picking up stealth planes - that's the
:whole point of stealth planes, after all - so it is obvious that
:they're going to have a hell of a lot more problems dealing with a very
:much smaller and inherently stealthy object. I don't doubt they will
:eventually find a means of coping with them, but that's probably years
:away - and the threat exists now.

Hint #4: The sky is NOT falling, Chicken Little....

:Note that according to the website above concerning the half-hour
:terrorist flight over Israel "the Israeli army could also do nothing to
:shut down the plane though they observed the entire flight over their
:territory."

And just why was that? It's a preposterous claim. If you can see it
you can kill it.

:The situation is analogous to that posed by the first Russian anti-ship
:missile, the Styx. It was around for years and no-one took much notice
:until one sank an Israeli destroyer in 1967 -

And was totally ineffective only 5 years later, although dozens were
fired, with one even being downed by a 75mm gun.

:then the USN woke up to
:the need for a short-range defence system, and Phalanx was the eventual
:answer.

You have an interesting view of history is all I can say.

--
"Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute."
-- Charles Pinckney