"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
:In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
:"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
::So, we are that a helicopter can effectively engage a low slow flier,
::correct?
:
:For some definition of "effectively", "low" and "slow".
:
:Thank you.
:
::So in fact you agree that helicopters *can* intercept slow low fliers
::and *do* have capability against them?
:
:Of course. So can a swimmer with a handgun.
:
:No, because the swimmer can't catch them, nor is his weapon likely to be
:effective.
The swimmer can't 'catch' an INBOUND aircraft? Hell, he hardly has to
move at all, Paul.
:Still, let's not demand logic or sense from Fred...
Still, let's not demand basic physics or sense from Paul...
::Really, Fred? A quick perusal of Joint Publication 1-02 (Department of
:
efense Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms) gives us
::"interceptor" as "A manned aircraft utilized for identification and/or
::engagement of airborne objects."
::
::Sounds like it fits the bill.
:
:Now look around some more and you'll find other definitions where it
:doesn't fit the bill.
:
:Quite handy to pick and choose, Paul.
:
:Thanks, but I leave those games to folks like Tiglath... and you.
Would that you did. However, that's just another bit of prevarication
on your part.
::If you send a helicopter to investigate a low slow flyer, is it not "a
::manned aircraft utilized for identification and/or engagement of
::airborne objects"? According to the US DoD, that's an 'interceptor', but
::Fred doesn't believe them.
:
:No, according to one document (which rather neglects to define
:'aircraft', so you can see how complete THAT is) it is. Now break out
:your handy dandy desktop dictionary and look up 'interceptor', Paul.
:
:Thanks, but when I'm talking to the military I use their definitions.
:
::Or, perhaps, Paul is right and Fred has to keep screaming "liar!"
::because he's been caught - yet again - making grossly incorrect
::statements.
:
:The two aren't even connected, Paul. Go count the number of times
:you've claimed I said something I never said.
:
:Except for those times when Fred *has* said it and now has to
bfusticate and whine.
Speaking of folks going into "obfusticate and whine" mode...
::Amusing evasion, Fred. How does the USN HELDET participation in NW063's
::"slow low-flyer" phase prove me a liar?
:
:Where did I ever "insist it can't be done and it's not possible and
:the aircraft have no capability", Paul.
:
:I quote you saying so and you doubt it?
Well, no. Go read exactly what was said again, Paul.
:All I did was ask a few simple questions.
:
:All you did was make a few bold, sweeping and incorrect statements.
All you did was make a few bold, sweeping and prevaricating
statements.
:All you did was lie about
:what I said.
:
:So helicopters *can* effectively intercept slow low fliers?
For some definition of 'effectively', 'slow', and 'low'. We've been
through this, Paul.
:Then why
:have you been whining so loud and long, protesting that I'm a liar,
Because you have been going on and on about my having said things I
never said. That's called lying. That's why I call you a liar.
:and
:generally making a fool of yourself?
Well, no. Recognizing you lie is hardly making a fool of ME.
:Oh, wait - Fred is now trying to evade by saying he never said it was
:*impossible*,
Evade? Paul, I never did say it was impossible. You lied and claimed
that. Now you're acting as if it's true. Are you really this
dishonest, or merely this deluded?
:it's just that 'real navies' don't do it, except that even
:the USN is exercising its capability in that regard... so are we to take
:it that according to Fred the USN isn't a "real navy"?
Paul, show me one instance in the real world (not some contrived
exercise with the little cousins) where a US carrier 'scrambled
helicopters' to act as interceptors. Just one will do.
Show me anyplace where the GAU-16 (the gun SH-60s OPTIONALLY may
carry) is described by the Navy as an air-to-air weapon. Just one
will do.
::Answer the question, Fred - can helicopters intercept slow low-flyers or
::not?
::
::Oh, wait, you did. Have you changed your mind?
:
:No, Paul. I haven't changed my mind and I'm pretty unlikely to do so
:in the face of a pathetic little ****** like you.
:
:I'd ask you what YOU think my answer is, but I'm sure you'll get it
:wrong.
:
:I asked YOU what your answer is, because it's dishonest to invent an
pinion and falsely attribute it to someone.
Then why do you do it so frequently? Why are there so many examples
of your doing it throughout this very thread?
Well, unless you're Fred, in which case it's perfectly reasonable when
:*he* does it)
Ah, projection, thy name is 'Paul'.
::No, Fred - what were you saying about liars?
:
:So what is your point in dredging up the factoid that there have been
:machine guns intended for "shooting at small slow ~100kt prop-driven
:aircraft", Paul?
:
:Because they're being used to shoot at small slow ~100kt prop-driven
:aircraft, in this case, Fred, and you claim they're useless for the task
Lying again. Where did I say that, Paul? Please point to my ever
saying that they're "useless". Come on. After all, "it's dishonest
to invent an opinion and falsely attribute it to someone".
ISN'T IT?
despite the concept being designed for the task)
Gee, all those folks in trenches must have really been airplanes,
then. Right?
::Some of us understand these complicated things. Other people, evidently,
::don't...
:
:Some of you apparently understand quite poorly, then, since you find
:it convenient to treat all .50 caliber guns as if they are the same.
:
:No, I'm referring in particular to the M3M; the USN can evaluate its own
:equipment and make its own decisions.
Ah, and we're back to your particular piece of kit on your particular
helicopter in your particular (ahem) navy. Which, might I note, is
not the particular piece of kit on the particular helicopter discussed
in the original story, which was from a different navy.
Yeah, nothing dishonest about Paul.
Where did I refer to "all .50 calibre guns" as the same, by the way? Is
:this one of those instances of lying about what someone says, that Fred
:claims to find so hateful and mendacious? Surely Fred can produce
:evidence that I consider all '.50 guns' to be equal? Or is he just lying
:his ass off now?)
You claimed that they must (as a general rule) be useful since they
were originally tasked to shoot at 'kites'.
Please show me where the GAU-16 mounted on an SH-60 is ever described
as an air-to-air weapon, Paul.
:Of course, they aren't, but then you've never been one to let the
:truth get in your way, have you, Paul?
:
:I stick to the truth because it works.
Would that this was true. This thread would have ended long ago.
:Watching you try to wriggle your
:way out of your own words is amusing, though.
Watching you twist them is, well, I guess 'pathetic' is the word I
would use, Paul.
::It's amusing to steer you through your predictable pattern of behaviour,
::that's all.
:
:Yes, this sort of sad little exercise is all you have to prove your
:importance to yourself, isn't it, Paul?
:
:More invention and falsehood from Fred.
Sure, Paul. That's why you do it. Now, after spraying all your
falsehoods, you claim it's me.
:Here's a hint, Fred - Aunt Sally doesn't call the shots.
That's nice. Who's Aunt Sally when she's up and dressed and why
should I care?
Just more Paul trying to convince himself he's important and clever...
::"So, Paul thinks that 'interceptor' means 'helicopter'. How low the
::Empire has sunk when that's true." writes Fred.
:
:Note that saying a helicopter isn't an 'interceptor' isn't the same
:thing as saying it cannot 'intercept' things, regardless of whatever
:definitions Paul wants to pick and choose.
:
:So, Fred wriggles predictably.
Interestingly, Paul now reveals that he considers pointing to the
facts to be mere "wriggles".
Well, I suppose they are when you lie the way he does.
::Shall we try a straight question? Earlier, I asked Fred "So, Fred, do
::naval helicopters intercept some types of aerial category or not?"
::
::Fred replies, "No, they do not."
::
::Now, Fred denies his denial. Is Fred dishonest or just confused?
:
:Note the cute word changes. Can they? Sure. Do they? Not in a real
:navy.
:
:So the USN isn't coming over to do just that this month? Strange.
We frequently do things with the little cousins that we don't do when
we're playing for keeps, Paul. Look at your history of the Empire.
I'm sure the practice will start looking familiar to you.
::Fred goes on to tell us "'Intercept' implies they do something other
::than
::watch once they get out there."
::
:
Actually, to "intercept" is defined as identification and / or
::engagement,
:
:If one is selective about ones choice of definitions.
:
:Well, I stick to the DoD version. Tiglath likes to search until he finds
:someone using a word in the way he likes, but I thought that was more
:than a little dishonest.
Uh, Paul? That's just ONE DoD version. This is barely different than
what you describe Tiglet doing, above.
::So to Fred, claiming that helicopters have no ability to engage the
::target, means they carry effective weapons. Strange logic, but that's
::Fred for you.
:
:And Paul continues to lie. Read carefully, Paul.
:
:YOU said I claimed something I never claimed.
:
:Like, that helicopters never intercept air contacts?
Try reading carefully, Paul. I know it's tough, but it's ok if you
have to move your lips. No one will see.
Point to a SINGLE instance in the real world (rather than in a
contrived exercise) where a US carrier 'scrambled helicopters' to act
as INTERCEPTORS (not recce). Just one will do.
: Now YOU want to
:construct further lies around your original.
:
:Not my fault that they can and they do.
Yes, it is your fault that you can and do construct further lies
around your originals.
:How very, well, PAUL of you.
:
:Yep - really sucks to make such a performance out of being wrong,
:doesn't it, Fred?
You ought to know.
::Certainly am - every time you call me a liar, it's because I've caught
::you in an error, and rather than just shrug and say "live and learn" you
::have to scream "liar!".
:
:It figures. Paul has lied so much he can't even sort out fact from
:fiction any more.
:
:See what I mean?
Yes, I do. But obfuscation only makes YOU feel better, Paul.
::Well, that is *such* a factual riposte that I'm just floored, Fred.
:
:Let's include the rest of that - the bits cut from your cute selective
:editing, shall we, 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."
:
:Yep - pathetic lowest form of Usenet life.
:
:I don't see any refutations or any facts in there, Fred, but repeat your
:whining as much as you like if it makes you happy.
But you had to snip it to try to make things sound different, didn't
you?
:You're calling me a liar and generally doing your usual posturing ranter
:act, because I'm telling you that helicopters not only have an effective
:capability to intercept slow low fliers, but actually train to do. The
:USN agrees with me and is sending some of its own helos to participate
:in such an exercise.
No, Paul. I'm calling you a liar because you lie. You've repeatedly
lied throughout this thread about what I've said. When I immediately
point it out I get back "What lie"?
I believe you're stupid, but I don't believe you're THAT stupid.
:While you're trumpeting your outrage and insisting that I'm a liar,
:reality is leaving you behind, Fred...
So you just go on believing that the USN is using helicopters off
carriers as interceptors, Paul, even though you can't point to a
single episode where this was done in the real world.
Hint: Exercises are CONTRIVED scenarios where all sorts of odd things
might be trialed or else might be done to 'play nice' with the little
kids.
Oh, I believe that YOU use them that way, Paul. I just see no
convincing evidence that they'd be the vehicle of choice if you had
any choice.
--
"False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the
soul with evil."
-- Socrates