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