AviationBanter - View Single Post

Fred J. McCall

wrote:

:
:Fred J. McCall wrote:
: wrote:
:
: : 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.
:
:What makes you so certain that gunnery radar WILL lock on to a stealthy
:UAV?

What makes you think that fighter aircraft use gunnery radar?

:The UAVs are designed, after all, to avoid being picked up by
:radar. For defence planning purposes the assumption has to be that
:radar will not probably work against them, unless and until it is

roved to be capable of doing so. To take any other attitude would be
:foolish complacency.

Which means nothing, since a fighter attacking with a gun uses
EYEBALLS to get the target and they're way up close.

: :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.
:
:And exactly how will the pilot aim his guns, if the radar gunsight
:won't lock on and the sights he's got are no better than WW2 standards?

He'll aim them the same way he aims them against anything else. Times
have changed since WW2 and no 'radar gunsight' is required.

:Hint #1: in WW2 the Luftwaffe found that only between 2% and 5% of the
:shots they fired hit the target - and they were shooting at B-17s! Now
:scale down the target size to a UAV with a wingspan of a couple of
:metres, and work out how much ammo would have to be fired to nail one.

About 5 rounds.

:Hint #2: unlike the Luftwaffe's ammo, the current standard US 20mm
:aircraft SAPHEI shell, the PGU-28/B, does not have a tracer - so the

ilot will have no idea where his shots are going.

Nor does he need to. It's NICE to have radar, but it's hardly
necessary in order to score a lot of hits with a modern gun and HUD.

: :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....
:
:I sincerely hope that you have absolutely no connection with the

lanning of USN defence systems, because that sort of sneering
:complacency gets the wrong people killed.

I sincerely hope that you have absolute no connection with the
planning of ANY systems used by the military, because such abysmal
ignorance leads to unexecutable programs designed to counter
non-existent threats.

: :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.
:
:How, exactly? Ordinary MGs with eyeball sights stand hardly any chance

f connecting with a small plane at an unknown distance and travelling
:at an unknown speed, unless it comes very low and close. Radar FCS
:would probably not even pick it up.

And none of that applies to most modern aircraft, or even most modern
air defense weapons in general.

:The report I referenced has this to say: "According to a statement of
:Hezbollah leader, the flight over Israel to Nahariya lasted 14 minutes.
:Israeli side confirms this claim."
:
:The report also says: "Currently no country has an efficient defense
:against small low-flying UAVs, because existing air defense systems are
:not designed to counter threats of this type. Air defenses are mainly
:aimed at relatively large and fast planes. Thus, it is not surprising
:that Israeli air defense turned out to be weak against "Mirsad 1" UAV.
:Israeli army could also do nothing to shut down the plane though they

bserved the entire flight over their territory."
:
:Unless you have evidence that the report is a fabrication - in which
:case please post it here - what are your grounds for dismissing it,
:except of course that you don't want to believe it?

Because it's from an untrustworthy source and doesn't seem to fit the
facts of our current reality, however much it might accord with yours.

: :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.
:
:That's right: the Styx was a very big and quite slow missile which made
:a nice big target. Modern anti-ship missiles are in a completely
:different league. Please note that the Israelis now fit Phalanx to just
:about all of their warships.

So noted. So what? What does this have to do with the current
discussion?

: :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.
:
:So please explain - why in your opinion was Phalanx developed?

I was referring to your apparently belief that everyone was ignoring
everything up until 1967. This is merely a stupid belief, totally at
odds with the reality most of us live in.

:Just to help you, I have a copy of an article by the US technical naval
:historian Norman Friedman, which describes the Phalanx as "specifically
:designed to destroy incoming missiles which have survived other fleet
:defences."

Just to help you, we build the ****ing thing.

:Your basic attitude seems to be that the USN defences will work

erfectly as they do "in the movies", while their attackers will be
:easily defeated.

I don't feel particularly responsible for how things seem to you. I'd
attribute that to your meds, not anything to do with me.

:Try asking the crew of USS Stark about that. NO weapon
:system, offensive or defensive, can be relied upon to work all of the
:time, for a variety of technical and human failure reasons.

That's right, but again it's irrelevant to the current discussion.

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