If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#181
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Paul J. Adam wrote:
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/cl289/ gets you a jet-propelled UAV that's been in service for some time. They're unusual - for most applications a prop seems to give better endurance-range-speed tradeoffs - but not totally unheard of. Props are more efficient at low speeds and low altitudes. The Pentagon is still buying turboprop transports after all. http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/hercules/ -HJC |
#182
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
: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. : on't bother, Fred. Fine. Just don't go all into a snit when you get slapped. :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. Wrong again, Paul. Jesus, you NEVER figure it out, do you? ::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. 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. :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. :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 amazes me is how poorly some of you ENGLISH seem to be at comprehension of your mother tongue. ::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 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. As usual, Paul hears and sees what he want to and disregards the rest. :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. Yeah, about what's expected from you, Paul. 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). Where did I say anything remotely resembling that "they were ineffective for anything other than ground fire"? Don't look now, but you're already starting to make **** up and then lie about my having said it again, Paul. :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. It's only expected from you by now, Paul. -- "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates |
#183
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Juergen Nieveler wrote:
:Henry J Cobb wrote: : : The USN has refuted claims that an Iranian UAV buzzed a U.S. Aircraft : Carrier. See: : : http://navytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1843922.php : : “No planes were scrambled at all. That did not happen.” : : So they didn't detect it? ;-) : :Just like no Ohio has ever been tracked by russian subs. Maybe it's :true, but probably it's just wishful thinking. Wrong again, Juergen. You can probably believe that no Ohio has ever been tracked by Russian subs, for good and sufficient reason that Ohios can detect them first and avoid them. -- "Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar territory." --G. Behn |
#184
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
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 |
#185
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
: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 r not? No, they do not. 'Intercept' implies they do something other than watch once they get out there. :You claimed not and said the idea was ludicrous: I'm seariding in an :exercise where they plan to do just that. Yes, of course you are. :What do I not "figure out" apart from your curious cocktail of arrogance :and ignorance? Try reading the words, Paul. ::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? I said that where, Paul? Just making more **** up and lying, as is your usual wont. Hint: I can throw rocks, too, but that doesn't make a rock an air-to-air weapon. That's determined by what the weapon was designed for and intended to do. If the MG on an SH-60 was intended as an air-to-air weapon it wouldn't look as it does in the picture at the URL below. ::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? I said that where, Paul? I know it's hard for you, but do try to read the actual words instead of making **** up you want me to have said and then pretending that your delusions are reality. :Curious claim. Do you have any evidence for that, or is this another of :your bold baseless assertions? Yes, it is a curious claim. The most curious thing about it is that you're lying about my having said it. You that bored out at sea, Paul? ::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? Go back and read the words, Paul. No evasion required. ::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. No doubt. Some of you are also stupider and more up your own backsides than I am. :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? Not much, apparently. ::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. It's your sort of rhetorical question, Paul. You should be able to recognize the tactic. :What part of that is expressing confidence in the gunner's ability to :hit a man-size target at fifty metres' range? Let me get this straight. You want to form up on an unmanned vehicle that is ostensibly hostile and fly stupidly along 50 meters out in a helicopter. And what do you do when it turns into you (other than **** yourself and die in a ball of flames, I mean). :Yeah, about what's expected from you, Paul. : :Quite so - more Fred foolishness exposed. You mean more Paul lies about what he claims happened. :What are you going to insist is impossible next? You telling the truth. Experience seems to teach that that is at least pretty unlikely, if not outright impossible. :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.) And US carriers have how many such aircraft on board? [Remember the origin of the discussion, Paul - the ridiculous idea that a US carrier "scrambled 2 helicopters and 4 jet fighters" to engage an Iranian UAV.] :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. Yes, well, as I said, you lot probably don't have any choice, not having a real navy with real airplanes to do this job. :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. Only to those unable to read. Given the choice, Paul, I'd rather engage an air target with a 20mm cannon intended for engaging air targets. Your mileage apparently varies, but then I'm not impressed with your analytical skills to this point anyway. :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. And if this was the beginning of the 20th century and we were using such a purpose-designed thing for the purpose for which it was intended I would probably be using different words. You, on the other hand, would still be trying to lie about what is said to you. :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. And apparently pointing out to you that you're lying yet again also does no good, as you just keep doing it. ::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. No, meaning that you're making **** up and then claiming I said it. In civilized countries this deliberate promulgation of falsehood is referred to as a 'lie' and those who engage in it as 'liars'. Things are apparently different where you are. :It's only expected from you by now, Paul. : on't like being proved wrong, do you? No, I don't like being lied about. If you want to make **** up and then pretend that I've said it so that you can 'prove it wrong', why, you just go right ahead. All it says, however, is that you're a liar. -- "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates |
#186
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
In message , Fred J. McCall
writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote: :So, Fred, do naval helicopters intercept some types of aerial category r not? No, they do not. 'Intercept' implies they do something other than watch once they get out there. And your source for saying that a M3M-equipped Lynx can't engage a light aircraft or UAV is...? Be detailed and specific, please, you're arguing against current doctrine. :You claimed not and said the idea was ludicrous: I'm seariding in an :exercise where they plan to do just that. Yes, of course you are. Yes, Fred, I am. Were you too busy ranting, to notice where I work these days? :What do I not "figure out" apart from your curious cocktail of arrogance :and ignorance? Try reading the words, Paul. I did. You say that helicopters can't intercept slow low-flying air contacts and have no capability against them. I say they can, and they do. The USN agrees enough that it's sending a detachment to participate in that phase of NEPTUNE WARRIOR 063. I fear one of us must be mistaken, but I doubt it's me - I know who's writing the exercise orders, and I doubt you do. :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? I said that where, Paul? So helicopters actually *do* carry weapons usable against some air targets, then? Hint: I can throw rocks, too, but that doesn't make a rock an air-to-air weapon. That's determined by what the weapon was designed for and intended to do. If the MG on an SH-60 was intended as an air-to-air weapon it wouldn't look as it does in the picture at the URL below. And nobody - at least not in the RN - is suggesting it's an effective response to fast jets. But it'll do a good job on light aircraft and most UAVs - the "slow low flyer" category that, oddly enough, the fast-moving pointy-nose crowd have some difficulty with. :So, a .50" machine gun can't shoot down a UAV? I said that where, Paul? "Intercept' implies they do something other than watch once they get out there." writes Fred. So, a helicopter with a .50" door gun can only watch the UAV, according to Fred. Not a _universally_ shared opinion, but there you go. I know it's hard for you, but do try to read the actual words instead of making **** up you want me to have said and then pretending that your delusions are reality. Yes, yes, Fred, of course. Just keep on babbling insults and hope nobody notices that you're digging yourself deeper all the time. You claimed it's impossible for helicopters to respond to UAVs or other slow low fliers, I say it is. Apparently that makes me a liar and exercises testing the practice prove... that you're right and I'm lying. Just keep on screaming "Liar!" Everyone believes you. You're completely credible, being so famous for your stability, politeness and reason. :Curious claim. Do you have any evidence for that, or is this another of :your bold baseless assertions? Yes, it is a curious claim. The most curious thing about it is that you're lying about my having said it. "Intercept' implies they do something other than watch once they get out there." writes Fred. Where, in that statement, is any acceptance of a capability against the slow low flyer? Is Fred grossly dishonest, or just terribly confused? :Nice evasion. Can you explain why your own navy is exercising at a task :you've claim is impossible, implausible and without reason? Go back and read the words, Paul. No evasion required. So, is the USN sending helicopters to exercise against "slow low fliers" proof that it's impossible? I'm curious. You insist it can't be done and it's not possible and the aircraft have no capability... and yet on every detail you turn out to be wrong. :Some of us are less closed-minded and more adaptable than you, Fred. No doubt. Some of you are also stupider and more up your own backsides than I am. No, I doubt that, you'd be almost unbeatable in that regard. I hope this makes you proud. :"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. It's your sort of rhetorical question, Paul. You should be able to recognize the tactic. Oh, so now it *is* what you said, but you didn't actually *mean* it. Did you say it or not? Well, obviously you did. So, can a USN doorgunner hit a co-velocity man-size target at fifty yards - or not? :What part of that is expressing confidence in the gunner's ability to :hit a man-size target at fifty metres' range? Let me get this straight. You want to form up on an unmanned vehicle that is ostensibly hostile and fly stupidly along 50 meters out in a helicopter. And what do you do when it turns into you (other than **** yourself and die in a ball of flames, I mean). Stop shifting the argument, Fred. You claimed it was impossible to hit the target in those circumstances. Now, you're trying to claim it's "too dangerous" to get close to it in case it does something unpredictable (although you have no problem with fast jets making point-blank passes and assuming the target will plod along on its base course throughout). If it's that dangerous for a helicopter to close, why is it any safer for a fast jet to make repeated slow passes at point-blank range? :The Lynx Tactical Development desk officer. (He works two legs down from :my office.) And US carriers have how many such aircraft on board? None - perhaps this is why they're coming, to see how the RN manage and check whether there's anything the SH-60 community might want to borrow from us. Ain't teamwork great? Isn't it useful that not everyone in the US is as blinkered, arrogant, ignorant and dishonest as Fred? [Remember the origin of the discussion, Paul - the ridiculous idea that a US carrier "scrambled 2 helicopters and 4 jet fighters" to engage an Iranian UAV.] Remember the origin of the discussion, Fred - "helicopters don't intercept air targets". They can, they do, I have no idea at all whether they did in the Gulf recently and the USN participation in NW063 predates the incident. :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. Yes, well, as I said, you lot probably don't have any choice, not having a real navy with real airplanes to do this job. In other words, Fred is upset at - yet again - making a bold claim that's turned out to be thoroughly wrong. :"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. Only to those unable to read. Given the choice, Paul, I'd rather engage an air target with a 20mm cannon intended for engaging air targets. But then you may not be given the choice, and then what do you do? Panic and die because there's no fast-mover air available? Or consider an organic response? Your mileage apparently varies, but then I'm not impressed with your analytical skills to this point anyway. Well, Fred, I have to say... sob that... sniffle I'm really, really *hurt* by that. I mean, I just *live* for your good opinion. I don't care what my colleagues and friends think of my professional skills, the good regard of my oppos at Fleet matter *nothing* to me, respect from the Navy I set at naught, compared to keeping your respect and esteem. Get over yourself, you clueless twit, this is only Usenet. You've joyfully filed yourself in with erudite idiots like Tiglath - fond of rhetorical flourishes and bold statements, boasting of deep knowledge, yet never once able to just say "really? Damn! Didn't know that! Live and learn!" when their sweeping statements turn out to be incorrect. You picked your home and your peers, be happy with the results. :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. And if this was the beginning of the 20th century and we were using such a purpose-designed thing for the purpose for which it was intended I would probably be using different words. Like, shooting at small slow ~100kt prop-driven aircraft? Those were the targets for the TuF. You, on the other hand, would still be trying to lie about what is said to you. The UAVs of concern are small 100kt prop jobs. Poor Fred, so fixated on being right, so determined that he can never be wrong... :Sorry, Fred, but whining about being caught out does you no good. And apparently pointing out to you that you're lying yet again also does no good, as you just keep doing it. Yes, yes, yes, "lie" drops so swift and easy from your lips, doesn't it? Where, exactly, have I lied, Fred? You claimed helicopters can't intercept slow low flying air contacts. I pointed out that they can and they do. You claimed that helicopters can't carry weapons effective against slow low-flying air contacts. I pointed out that they can and they do. And so it goes... every time Fred makes a claim that turns out to be bold, sweeping and wrong, his reaction is to escalate the pitch of his "liar!" whine. He never learns, he never reconsiders, he can only accuse anyone who disagrees with him of lying. :Meaning, Fred is hoping that if he flings enough **** he can hide his :tracks. No, meaning that you're making **** up and then claiming I said it. Or, quoting what you said - which apparently becomes a lie because it was "my sort of rhetorical question". Poor Fred can't even bear to take responsibility for his own words any more. In civilized countries this deliberate promulgation of falsehood is referred to as a 'lie' and those who engage in it as 'liars'. In civilised countries, calling a man a liar used to have a simple resolution. Fort Widley courtyard, 0700 on the Saturday of your choice (if I refuse more than three then you win by default). Quiet, open, easy to find and if bothered we can claim to be re-enactionists practising, plus it's got a very nice view. Either bring your own sword or I can lend you one. Third blood wins, since otherwise the winner would have too many problems with the local constabulary. Or should I go the modern route, and sue you for libel? I'd need to see if there's a bloodsucker^H^H^H^H solicitor willing to take the case on a no-win-no-fee basis, of course, but I fear you effortlessly meet the test for 'strict libel' under UK law. Or do I laugh at the sad little man whose endless, predictable reaction to being caught in error is to shriek "Liar! Liar! Liar!" until he scurries to the comfort of his killfile? Which would you prefer, Fred? You love to scream "liar", how do you want your chance to prove it? :It's only expected from you by now, Paul. : on't like being proved wrong, do you? No, I don't like being lied about. In what way have I lied about you, Fred? You seem reckless, even joyous, in your endless dishonesty about me, but what have I said about you that is false? If you want to make **** up and then pretend that I've said it so that you can 'prove it wrong', why, you just go right ahead. Don't need to, Fred, I just have to quote your own words. When I do, you claim you "didn't mean it" or "it was rhetorical", of course, but I don't need to make **** up to make you look petulant and foolish - you do that all by yourself. All it says, however, is that you're a liar. Of course I am. Will you back those words with a sword in your hand? Will I see you in court? Or will you just hide in your killfile? Turkey trots to water, the world wonders. -- Paul J. Adam |
#187
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
|
#188
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
|
#190
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
"Paul J. Adam" wrote:
:In message , Fred J. McCall writes :"Paul J. Adam" wrote: ::So, Fred, do naval helicopters intercept some types of aerial category :r not? : :No, they do not. 'Intercept' implies they do something other than :watch once they get out there. : :And your source for saying that a M3M-equipped Lynx can't engage a light :aircraft or UAV is...? Gee, where did I say that, Paul? Making up yet more lies? :Be detailed and specific, please, you're arguing against current :doctrine. Follow along with me now. We're talking about NAVIES. You know. Folks who have something besides destroyers. As I've already pointed out, YOU probably don't have any choice in this. ::You claimed not and said the idea was ludicrous: I'm seariding in an ::exercise where they plan to do just that. : :Yes, of course you are. : :Yes, Fred, I am. Were you too busy ranting, to notice where I work these :days? Yes, of course you are. ::What do I not "figure out" apart from your curious cocktail of arrogance ::and ignorance? : :Try reading the words, Paul. : :I did. You say that helicopters can't intercept slow low-flying air :contacts and have no capability against them. Ok, now try reading the words and not lying about what they say. I know that second part is hard for you, but try. I never said any such thing. You're just lying yet again. I said "we don't use them as interceptors", which means something somewhat different. The noun 'interceptor' means just a bit more than "something that is used to intercept" when talking about aircraft. :I say they can, and they do. The USN agrees enough that it's sending a :detachment to participate in that phase of NEPTUNE WARRIOR 063. : :I fear one of us must be mistaken, but I doubt it's me - I know who's :writing the exercise orders, and I doubt you do. I fear one of us is a congenital liar. It's most assuredly you. ::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? : :I said that where, Paul? : :So helicopters actually *do* carry weapons usable against some air :targets, then? Paul, *I* sometimes carry weapons usable against some air targets. That doesn't make them anti-aircraft weapons. :Hint: I can throw rocks, too, but that doesn't make a rock an :air-to-air weapon. That's determined by what the weapon was designed :for and intended to do. If the MG on an SH-60 was intended as an :air-to-air weapon it wouldn't look as it does in the picture at the :URL below. : :And nobody - at least not in the RN - is suggesting it's an effective :response to fast jets. : :But it'll do a good job on light aircraft and most UAVs - the "slow low :flyer" category that, oddly enough, the fast-moving pointy-nose crowd :have some difficulty with. : ::So, a .50" machine gun can't shoot down a UAV? : :I said that where, Paul? : :"Intercept' implies they do something other than watch once they get out :there." writes Fred. : :So, a helicopter with a .50" door gun can only watch the UAV, according :to Fred. : :Not a _universally_ shared opinion, but there you go. So, Paul thinks that 'interceptor' means 'helicopter'. How low the Empire has sunk when that's true. :I know it's hard for you, but do try to read the actual words instead :of making **** up you want me to have said and then pretending that :your delusions are reality. : :Yes, yes, Fred, of course. Just keep on babbling insults and hope nobody :notices that you're digging yourself deeper all the time. : :You claimed it's impossible for helicopters to respond to UAVs or other :slow low fliers, I say it is. Apparently that makes me a liar and :exercises testing the practice prove... that you're right and I'm lying. : :Just keep on screaming "Liar!" Everyone believes you. You're completely :credible, being so famous for your stability, politeness and reason. : ::Curious claim. Do you have any evidence for that, or is this another of ::your bold baseless assertions? : :Yes, it is a curious claim. The most curious thing about it is that :you're lying about my having said it. : :"Intercept' implies they do something other than watch once they get out :there." writes Fred. Where, in that statement, is any acceptance of a :capability against the slow low flyer? : :Is Fred grossly dishonest, or just terribly confused? I'll simply note that Paul has to go find things out of context to insert rather than simply leaving the original quotes and context in. Is Paul a liar, or ... well, that seems to be the only possibility, doesn't it? ::Nice evasion. Can you explain why your own navy is exercising at a task ::you've claim is impossible, implausible and without reason? : :Go back and read the words, Paul. No evasion required. : :So, is the USN sending helicopters to exercise against "slow low fliers" roof that it's impossible? : :I'm curious. You insist it can't be done and it's not possible and the :aircraft have no capability... and yet on every detail you turn out to :be wrong. Yes, you ARE curious. Most curious is why you are so driven to misconstrue and lie. Is your life THAT dull again these days, Paul? ::Some of us are less closed-minded and more adaptable than you, Fred. : :No doubt. Some of you are also stupider and more up your own :backsides than I am. : :No, I doubt that, you'd be almost unbeatable in that regard. : :I hope this makes you proud. Poor Paul. Working SO hard to pick a fight. What is it, Paul? Current job boring? Marriage on the rocks? Jealousy against someone who can actually succeed in private industry? Nobody else will talk to you? What? ::"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. : :It's your sort of rhetorical question, Paul. You should be able to :recognize the tactic. : :Oh, so now it *is* what you said, but you didn't actually *mean* it. : id you say it or not? Well, obviously you did. : :So, can a USN doorgunner hit a co-velocity man-size target at fifty :yards - or not? Of course they 'can', Paul. I can hit low flying airplanes with a handgun, too, but it's not a very bright choice of system to use and that doesn't make my pistol an anti-aircraft gun any more than it makes a helicopter an interceptor. ::What part of that is expressing confidence in the gunner's ability to ::hit a man-size target at fifty metres' range? : :Let me get this straight. You want to form up on an unmanned vehicle :that is ostensibly hostile and fly stupidly along 50 meters out in a :helicopter. And what do you do when it turns into you (other than :**** yourself and die in a ball of flames, I mean). : :Stop shifting the argument, Fred. Stop lying about what's been said, Paul. :You claimed it was impossible to hit :the target in those circumstances. Go back and read it again. I made no such claim. I merely asked an idiot a question to 'set the hook'. :Now, you're trying to claim it's "too :dangerous" to get close to it in case it does something unpredictable Now where did I say that, Paul? Just another question. although you have no problem with fast jets making point-blank passes 'Point blank' for a 20mm cannon is just a BIT further away than 50 meters and we're not talking about a fighter jet just noodling around alongside. :and assuming the target will plod along on its base course throughout). Lying AGAIN, Paul. Where did I say that? :If it's that dangerous for a helicopter to close, why is it any safer :for a fast jet to make repeated slow passes at point-blank range? Work the math, Paul. Come on, you used to be an engineer. How many meters per second is the UAV traveling and how many (how few, actually) seconds does that give your helo to respond when it rolls and turns into you? Keep in mind that helos do NOT respond immediately to controls like fixed wing vehicles do. Put a fast mover 50 meters away from your little UAV and he can just blow through in the mach and let the turbulence shoot it down. He's not going to be out there noodling about as a target. Remember, your attack method for a helicopter REQUIRES you to do that. ::The Lynx Tactical Development desk officer. (He works two legs down from ::my office.) : :And US carriers have how many such aircraft on board? : :None - perhaps this is why they're coming, to see how the RN manage and :check whether there's anything the SH-60 community might want to borrow :from us. Perhaps, but then we routinely play with all sorts of smaller, less capable forces. :Ain't teamwork great? Isn't it useful that not everyone in the :US is as blinkered, arrogant, ignorant and dishonest as Fred? Isn't it useful that not everyone in the UK is the congenital liar that Paul is? :[Remember the origin of the discussion, Paul - the ridiculous idea :that a US carrier "scrambled 2 helicopters and 4 jet fighters" to :engage an Iranian UAV.] : :Remember the origin of the discussion, Fred - "helicopters don't :intercept air targets". Put it back in context again, Paul. What you claim as "the origin of the discussion" isn't. Of course, why would anyone be surprised that you'd lie about that? :They can, they do, I have no idea at all whether they did in the Gulf :recently and the USN participation in NW063 predates the incident. : ::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. : :Yes, well, as I said, you lot probably don't have any choice, not :having a real navy with real airplanes to do this job. : :In other words, Fred is upset at - yet again - making a bold claim :that's turned out to be thoroughly wrong. In other words, Paul is bored at his pitiful life and has nothing better to do than try to pick fights. That's a pretty poor form of Usenet life, Paul. ::"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. : :Only to those unable to read. Given the choice, Paul, I'd rather :engage an air target with a 20mm cannon intended for engaging air :targets. : :But then you may not be given the choice, and then what do you do? Panic :and die because there's no fast-mover air available? Or consider an rganic response? Oh, we're talking DESPERATION measures now? Try going back to the original context again, Paul. AIRCRAFT CARRIER, remember? Ours generally have a few vehicles available with real air-to-air systems on them. :Your mileage apparently varies, but then I'm not impressed :with your analytical skills to this point anyway. : :Well, Fred, I have to say... sob that... sniffle I'm really, really :*hurt* by that. : :I mean, I just *live* for your good opinion. I don't care what my :colleagues and friends think of my professional skills, the good regard f my oppos at Fleet matter *nothing* to me, respect from the Navy I set :at naught, compared to keeping your respect and esteem. Well, now you have some idea of just how important YOUR opinion is to ME, Paul. :Get over yourself, you clueless twit, this is only Usenet. You've :joyfully filed yourself in with erudite idiots like Tiglath - fond of :rhetorical flourishes and bold statements, boasting of deep knowledge, :yet never once able to just say "really? Damn! Didn't know that! Live :and learn!" when their sweeping statements turn out to be incorrect. Oddly, I was just going to compare your tactics to Tiglet myself. Grab the out of context quote and worry it like a terrier with a bone, all the while distorting and engaging in outright lies about what's actually been said. :You picked your home and your peers, be happy with the results. Yes, you did, and you're precisely that sort of Usenet life, Paul. Your life so pathetic that all you can do is try to pick fights. ::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. : :And if this was the beginning of the 20th century and we were using :such a purpose-designed thing for the purpose for which it was :intended I would probably be using different words. : :Like, shooting at small slow ~100kt prop-driven aircraft? Those were the :targets for the TuF. So your logic runs that since there was once a gun intended for this that all guns from then on are? Gee, Britain must be building all those tanks just to bust trench lines then. snort :You, on the other :hand, would still be trying to lie about what is said to you. : :The UAVs of concern are small 100kt prop jobs. : :Poor Fred, so fixated on being right, so determined that he can never be :wrong... Paul, this is the sort of remark people have been making for 20 years in an effort to 'win' Usenet fights they pick. Next you can accuse me of getting mad. Poor Paul, just another pathetic little Usenet ******. ::Sorry, Fred, but whining about being caught out does you no good. : :And apparently pointing out to you that you're lying yet again also :does no good, as you just keep doing it. : :Yes, yes, yes, "lie" drops so swift and easy from your lips, doesn't it? Only because you do it so frequently. :Where, exactly, have I lied, Fred? I've pointed them out as we go, Paul. :You claimed helicopters can't intercept slow low flying air contacts. I made no such claim. You're lying again. :I pointed out that they can and they do. : :You claimed that helicopters can't carry weapons effective against slow :low-flying air contacts. I made no such claim. You're lying again. :I pointed out that they can and they do. Are you starting to see a pattern here, Paul? :And so it goes... every time Fred makes a claim that turns out to be :bold, sweeping and wrong, his reaction is to escalate the pitch of his :"liar!" whine. He never learns, he never reconsiders, he can only accuse :anyone who disagrees with him of lying. Pathetic lowest form of Usenet life, 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. ::Meaning, Fred is hoping that if he flings enough **** he can hide his ::tracks. : :No, meaning that you're making **** up and then claiming I said it. : :Or, quoting what you said - which apparently becomes a lie because it :was "my sort of rhetorical question". Poor Fred can't even bear to take :responsibility for his own words any more. Paul, only pathetic losers like you have or want to take the time to go sorting back through articles to try to find things to take out of context and wank on about. :In :civilized countries this deliberate promulgation of falsehood is :referred to as a 'lie' and those who engage in it as 'liars'. : :In civilised countries, calling a man a liar used to have a simple :resolution. How would you know? :Fort Widley courtyard, 0700 on the Saturday of your choice (if I refuse :more than three then you win by default). Quiet, open, easy to find and :if bothered we can claim to be re-enactionists practising, plus it's got :a very nice view. Either bring your own sword or I can lend you one. :Third blood wins, since otherwise the winner would have too many roblems with the local constabulary. Oh, I see. You claim to know about what is the practice in civilized countries and then think that the challenger gets to choose location, time, and weapon? Yeah, that's your sort of 'civilized', all right. :Or should I go the modern route, and sue you for libel? I'd need to see :if there's a bloodsucker^H^H^H^H solicitor willing to take the case on a :no-win-no-fee basis, of course, but I fear you effortlessly meet the :test for 'strict libel' under UK law. Typical. Just another sad way your ilk try to 'win'. What next? Threaten to write to my ISP? Threaten to talk to my company? Pathetic, Paul. :Or do I laugh at the sad little man whose endless, predictable reaction :to being caught in error is to shriek "Liar! Liar! Liar!" until he :scurries to the comfort of his killfile? Uh, don't look now, but YOU were the one killfiling ME most recently, Paul. Of course you now mention killfiles in a forlorn effort to keep your pathetic little fight going. Unfortunately for you, your bleating has no influence on my deciding to killfile you. :Which would you prefer, Fred? You love to scream "liar", how do you want :your chance to prove it? Already proven. See above. You've repeatedly claimed I've said things I never said based on your own pathetic misinterpretations. Such counterfactual claims are 'lies', Paul, and those who deliberately emit such counterfactual claims are 'liars'. ::It's only expected from you by now, Paul. :: :on't like being proved wrong, do you? : :No, I don't like being lied about. : :In what way have I lied about you, Fred? : :You seem reckless, even joyous, in your endless dishonesty about me, but :what have I said about you that is false? See above. I know this is your sad little species idea of 'sport'. It's why you don't matter. :If you want to make **** up and :then pretend that I've said it so that you can 'prove it wrong', why, :you just go right ahead. : on't need to, Fred, I just have to quote your own words. When I do, you :claim you "didn't mean it" or "it was rhetorical", of course, but I :don't need to make **** up to make you look petulant and foolish - you :do that all by yourself. Yes, all you have to do is try to paper over by fixating on one out of context quote and try to throw up enough dust. Pathetic, Paul. :All it says, however, is that you're a liar. : :Of course I am. Will you back those words with a sword in your hand? :Will I see you in court? Or will you just hide in your killfile? : :Turkey trots to water, the world wonders. Wank on, Paul. Wank on. It's apparently all you've got in life, after all. -- "False words are not only evil in themselves, but they infect the soul with evil." -- Socrates |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GAO: Electronic Warfa Comprehensive Strategy Needed for Suppressing Enemy | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 27th 05 06:23 PM |
CRS: V-22 Osprey Tilt-Rotor Aircraft | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | October 14th 05 08:14 PM |
Air defense (naval and air force) | Mike | Military Aviation | 0 | September 18th 04 04:42 PM |
Naval air defense | Mike | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 18th 04 04:42 PM |
Showstoppers (long, but interesting questions raised) | Anonymous Spamless | Military Aviation | 0 | April 21st 04 05:09 AM |