In message , Fred J. McCall
writes
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
:"Arrogand ******", in this case as so often otherwise, being anyone who
:catches Fred getting it loudly wrong yet again.
Wrong again, Paul. Jesus, you NEVER figure it out, do you?
So, Fred, do naval helicopters intercept some types of aerial category
or not?
You claimed not and said the idea was ludicrous: I'm seariding in an
exercise where they plan to do just that.
What do I not "figure out" apart from your curious cocktail of arrogance
and ignorance?
:Helicopters carry WEAPONS, Fred.
Not air-to-air weapons, Paul. Air-to-air interceptors carry
air-to-air weapons so that they can, well, INTERCEPT and not just
stand by and watch.
So a .50" machine gun isn't able to engage aircraft, Fred?
:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:GAU-16_.50_MG.jpg is a nice example
f the US version:
:
:http://www.royal-navy.mod.uk/server/...MediaFile.6900 shows a Lynx
:with two Skua and a M3M.
Yes, another fine set of air-to-air weapons. NOT.
So, a .50" machine gun can't shoot down a UAV?
Curious claim. Do you have any evidence for that, or is this another of
your bold baseless assertions?
: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 amazes me is how poorly some of you ENGLISH seem to be at
comprehension of your mother tongue.
Nice evasion. Can you explain why your own navy is exercising at a task
you've claim is impossible, implausible and without reason?
:Certainly could, Fred. See, instead of coming in at ~150 knots of
vertake, 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.
And a worse weapon used in a non-intended way.
Some of us are less closed-minded and more adaptable than you, Fred.
As usual, Paul hears
and sees what he want to and disregards the rest.
I'm just participating in the exercise, what do I know?
: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, I see. Now we're to the usual Paul Adam game where you just make
**** up and then pretend that I've said it.
"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" writes Fred.
What part of that is expressing confidence in the gunner's ability to
hit a man-size target at fifty metres' range?
Yeah, about what's expected from you, Paul.
Quite so - more Fred foolishness exposed.
What are you going to insist is impossible next?
Oh, and who told you that the MGs only had iron sights? Or that they
:were ineffective for anything other than ground fire?)
Oh, and who told you they had something other than 'iron sights' (look
at your own picture - what do YOU see him using for a sight).
The Lynx Tactical Development desk officer. (He works two legs down from
my office.)
One of the trials objectives is testing the newly-procured thermal
sights for the M3M guns in a variety of roles; the guns were quickly
acquired as a UOR for Telic, and having proved highly effective the
improved sights were procured in slower time.
Where did I say anything remotely resembling that "they were
ineffective for anything other than ground fire"?
"a weapon never intended to fire at anything but the ground" and "And a
worse weapon used in a non-intended way" would certainly seem to
qualify.
But then Fred seems to forget that the heavy machine gun started out
with the German 13mm TuF, or "Tank und Flieger", which was designed with
the role of shooting at ~100kt air targets in mind.
Don't look now, but you're already starting to make **** up and then
lie about my having said it again, Paul.
Sorry, Fred, but whining about being caught out does you no good.
:You've got an extraordinarily ill-tempered manner of saying "I was
:wrong".
And you've got an entirely ordinary way of lying about what I've said.
I categorize it as 'ordinary' based on your past history of similar
behaviour.
Meaning, Fred is hoping that if he flings enough **** he can hide his
tracks.
It's only expected from you by now, Paul.
Don't like being proved wrong, do you?
Back to your original claim - "Helicopters aren't used as interceptors."
Is the fact that helicopters are in fact exercising their capability to
intercept some types of air contacts, not sinking in yet?
--
Paul J. Adam