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 |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
: :Sorry, Fred, but you're condemned from your own mouth. Sorry, Paul, but cute editing tricks and confusing "can" with "do" hardly represents anything from MY mouth. I'll leave that sort of distortion to you congenital liars. :Unless "No, they do not" means "yes" to you, that is... And so we see Paul confusing the words "can they" with "do they" to construct his little game this time around. Poor Paul. This sort of thing is all he has.... Jesus Christ!...will you two please stop fighting in the house? We all know that you're both experts, this crap isn't enjoyable, isn't impressing anyone and makes you both look like fools... -- -Gord. (use gordon in email) |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Guy Alcala wrote:
If either/both of you still finds amusement in continuing this exchange, well and good, but I imagine the rest of us find it increasingly tedious. FWIW, may I suggest that each of you call a halt, and take away from it the certainty of the rightness of your position and its support/ approbation of some percentage of your audience; for yourselves, such percentage to be determined solely in your own minds, plus whatever public/private indications you may receive. Good day. Guy Yep... -- -Gord. (use gordon in email) |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
"Paul J. Adam" wrote in
: In message , Fred J. McCall writes "Paul J. Adam" wrote: :I'd like to keep the options open. Come in from above (where the sensors :can't see you) and see if the downwash takes it out: if not, then donate :some half-inch Raufoss at 1,100 rounds a minute. So would I. The difference is that I want to use some 20mm shells at 6,000 RPM. And I'd like to give the gunner a larger target and more time to fire - plus not everyone, not even the USN, has a fast jet in attendance on every unit at all times, but many of those units have helicopters. [Paul might want to look up the firing rate for that GAU-16 on the SH-60 (slower - only 750 RPM), the ammo supply (100 round can), and the intended purpose of said weapon ("anti-surface warfare and anti-light armor weapon"). Fred might want to look up the stats for the M3M - 1,100rpm and a 600-round feed - before making bold, sweeping statements. Not every naval helicopter is a SH-60 and not every doorgun is a GAU-16. This MIGHT give him some clue about why our opinions about how to do this differ - but, knowing Paul, it probably won't.] Just confirms the narrowness of Fred's mind - if he doesn't think it's possible then it can't be done, regardless of whether it's actually happening or not. Some helos also have pintle-mounted manually aimed 7.62 miniguns(gatlings) with a high rate of fire,and they would also be effective in downing a low&slow UAV. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Jim Yanik wrote: [SNIP] Some helos also have pintle-mounted manually aimed 7.62 miniguns(gatlings) with a high rate of fire,and they would also be effective in downing a low&slow UAV. -- Jim Yanik jyanik at kua.net Yep, check this out: http://www.strategypage.com/gallery/...s_20052123.asp Click the link below the photo to play the video. |
#216
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
"Brian Sharrock" wrote in message
... "Andrew Chaplin" wrote in message ... "Brian Sharrock" wrote in message ... wrote in message ... In article Ad6gg.5190$771.1108@edtnps89, (Ken Chaddock) wrote: The predominantly wooden deHavilland Mosquito was one of the first aircraft to be designed with this capability in mind. Against World War II radar systems, that approach was fairly successful, but it would not be appropriate today. I think stealth came way down the list when the Mosquito was designed, especially as radar was so secret those days. Design of the Mosquito started in 1938 when German Radar was unknown. It was more likely wood was adopted because De Haviland had far more experience with that material than metal. IIRC the DH4 had a monocoque fuselage. Ken Young Plus there was a surfeit of woodworkers, joiners and cabinet makers unable to practise their normal trade due to the war economy. The complement of metal-bashers were committed to aircraft and vehicle manufacture, and the 'new' science of laminated materials utilising resins was becoming available. All these factors culminated in the 'Ministry of Aircraft Production(?)' authorising the production of the wooden-hulled aircraft and allocating the necessary engines and hydraulic componentry to DH. The book 'The New Science of Strong Materials - or Why You Don't Fall Through the Floor' is recommended for the background to the development of the Mosquito airframe. Time for the contribution of Ogden Nash to be recognized: Some primal termite knocked on wood, Tasted it, and found it good. That is why your Cousin May Fell through the parlour floor today. -- The " ... why you don't fall through the floor " part of the title is posed, and explained. by the question; - 'if atoms are composed of nuclei and electrons - with vast relative spacing between the particles, and both the floor and your feet are composed of atoms - with vast relative spaces between them ... " ... why you don't fall through the floor " ? Luckily ; termites don't figure too much in English woodworkery ... Nor Canadian woodwork, but they are migrating north as global warming moderates our climate. But then, we have always had carpenter ants with us, and they are rotten little buggers. I think my grandfather was conscious of what a marvellous material wood is; his neighbours in Haddenham, however, were rather appalled by his propensity to use it for structures to house people. It's all a matter of how you mitigate the risk, I suppose. -- Andrew Chaplin SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO (If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.) |
#217
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Jim Yanik wrote:
:"Paul J. Adam" wrote in : : : In message , Fred J. McCall writes :"Paul J. Adam" wrote: ::I'd like to keep the options open. Come in from above (where the sensors ::can't see you) and see if the downwash takes it out: if not, then donate ::some half-inch Raufoss at 1,100 rounds a minute. : :So would I. The difference is that I want to use some 20mm shells at :6,000 RPM. : : And I'd like to give the gunner a larger target and more time to fire - : plus not everyone, not even the USN, has a fast jet in attendance on : every unit at all times, but many of those units have helicopters. : :[Paul might want to look up the firing rate for that GAU-16 on the :SH-60 (slower - only 750 RPM), the ammo supply (100 round can), and :the intended purpose of said weapon ("anti-surface warfare and :anti-light armor weapon"). : : Fred might want to look up the stats for the M3M - 1,100rpm and a : 600-round feed - before making bold, sweeping statements. Not every : naval helicopter is a SH-60 and not every doorgun is a GAU-16. : :This MIGHT give him some clue about why :our opinions about how to do this differ - but, knowing Paul, it :probably won't.] : : Just confirms the narrowness of Fred's mind - if he doesn't think it's : possible then it can't be done, regardless of whether it's actually : happening or not. : :Some helos also have pintle-mounted manually aimed 7.62 miniguns(gatlings) :with a high rate of fire,and they would also be effective in downing a :low&slow UAV. That's one of the other things that an SH-60 might get instead of the GAU-16. Note that it, too, is intended for attacking GROUND targets. There is no weapon of which I am aware that is cleared for the SH-60 that is intended for use against air targets. Most SH-60s don't have ANY gun fitted. I'll again note that context matters, and the context of the discussion was the Iranian claim that a US carrier 'scrambled to helicopters and 4 fighters' to intercept their UAV. It's a preposterous statement. -- You have never lived until you have almost died. Life has a special meaning that the protected will never know. |
#218
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
Henry J Cobb wrote: 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 Perhaps, and if the Iranians or *other* future US Navy oponent wanted to use UAVs soley for Transport/ Recon / and on call CAS then they will probably be prop driven. However if speed, stealth and ability to successfully strike US Naval forces is a design goal, then other forms of propolsion are likely. Since many jets are built for civilian markets and turbofans come in many sizes for smaller RC type aircraft, it is certainly not unreasonable to expect to see them experimented with by interested third parties. PAIN P.S. Before you try, I did not say either was a best option, only that they are options, therefore muting the "prop makes big radar returns" comment. Thank you, fly your Vulture selves elsewhere. |
#219
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
wrote:
Henry J Cobb wrote: 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 Perhaps, and if the Iranians or *other* future US Navy oponent wanted to use UAVs soley for Transport/ Recon / and on call CAS then they will probably be prop driven. However if speed, stealth and ability to successfully strike US Naval forces is a design goal, then other forms of propolsion are likely. Since many jets are built for civilian markets and turbofans come in many sizes for smaller RC type aircraft, it is certainly not unreasonable to expect to see them experimented with by interested third parties. PAIN P.S. Before you try, I did not say either was a best option, only that they are options, therefore muting the "prop makes big radar returns" comment. Thank you, fly your Vulture selves elsewhere. Jets have other possibilities, too. I remember the first time I saw a stealth fighters. I was driving from Las Cruces to Alamogordo on route 70. There is a very long straight stretch and off in the distance I saw what appeared to be large birds flying around. They did not move like any airplane I'd ever seen, but where in a regular pattern. After a while I got closer and realized they were jets doing touch-n-goes at Holloman. One really interesting approach might be to make a UAV look like a bird in flight. The, even if spotted, lookouts might not fully appreciate what they are looking at. John Mullen |
#220
|
|||
|
|||
Defense against UAV's
wrote: Guy Alcala wrote: "Fred J. McCall" wrote: Guy Alcala wrote: :"Fred J. McCall" wrote: snip : 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? : : Yeah, that could happen! : :Gven that the flight engineer on an Air America Huey was able to shoot down :an AN-2 using a hand-held AK-47, Yes, and someone knocked down a stealth fighter with a handgun. I'm sure you'll give a cite for that, Fred, but since I know about the Huey kill of the AN-2, I'll share first: "It Happened To Me by Walt Darran as told to M.L. Jones SOF Contributing Aviation Editor Walt Darran. who flew Navy fighter planes from 1961-67 and piloted Air America and Continental Air Services cargo planes from 1967-69, was present in Laos when (for the only time in aviation history) a helicopter shot down a fixed- wing aircraft - indeed, two of them. The victims were two Polish-built PZL Mielex Antonov AN-2 biplanes, known as Colts, of the North Vietnamese Air Force. The victor was an Air America Huey whose only armament was an AK-47 assault rifle. As Darran tells it: On 12 January 1968, an Air America Huey was delivering 105mm ammo from a U.S. TACAN (navigational aids) station perched on a high pinnacle deep in northern Laos to some artillery positions down below. I was flying a Continental Air Services Pilatus Porter (a single-engine turboprop transport capable of short landings and takeoffs) making some rice drops in the area at the time. I had just headed back for LS36 (a Royal Laotian Army base) to refuel when the choppcr pilot, Ted Moore, screamed over the radio that two Colts were strafing and bombing the artillery positions. We were the only ones in VHF radio contact with one another at the time and since I was higher, I transmitted the message to CROWN (an orbiting C-130 with powerful radio equipment capable of relaying messages from Laos and Vietnam to U.S. 7th Fleet aircraft carriers) for fighters, all the while ****ed as hell that I was almost out of fuel. I was familiar with the Colt. When I was in the Navy, they'd send us out on "Dawn Patrols," looking for the. rascals. They were used for aerial drops to isolated outposts, usually right at dawn in order to avoid visual sightings. To the best of my knowledge, the military never got one. Nor did they this time, despite the fact that all kinds of fighters were scrambled and sent to the area. By the time they got there, it was all over. I heard Ted say, "****, I'm faster and can outmaneuver them." So off the Huey went in pursuit. Glen Wood, the flight mechanic, had an AK-47 and shot the *******s down while the Huey made a few passes. One went down near the scene and the other pancaked into a hill it couldn't outclimb, about 13 miles away. I had to go to Vientiane the next day, so I missed getting any of the real goodies like Russian pistols, watches and so forth that were distributed when a Chinook brought one of the wrecks into LS36. One of the guys did manage to save me some of the canvas from the only fixed-wing aircraft ever shot down by a chopper." Cited from: http://limasite85.us/ann_holland_page_2.htm If you consider "Soldier of Fortune" to be a somewhat untrustworthy source, there are plenty of others describing the events. Here's another, slightly differing in the details: http://home.hiwaay.net/~jlwebs/misc.html and a third, ditto: http://www.cia.gov/csi/studies/95unclass/Linder.html Okay, your turn to tell us all about the the stealth fighter that was shot down with a handgun;-) :using a door gun while flying co-speed and arallel to a UAV should be doable, given that they can get a lot closer than :any fighter without needing to take avoiding action (owing to much lower -- :zero under ideal conditions -- closure rates. A UAV is a smaller target, but :likely able to take less violent avoiding action. Put a lead-computing :sight on the MG and it's easier, or just load it with lots of tracer. epending on how close they're willing to get (mainly a question of how :violently the UAV is or might be maneuvering), instead of an LCOSS they might :be able to get away with a simple laser sight. Alternatively, forward-firing :rockets with prox. fuses may do the trick, at relatively low cost. Why go to all this trouble? Use the bloody system that is already designed to deal with air vehicles. Because, as Paul has pointed out, it's fairly poorly suited to dealing with this particular type of target. Doesn't mean it could never do the job, but it's an inefficient use of resources. Larger UAVs are a different matter. Guy SAAF also claims a door gunner kill against a Zimbabwe? Defender. There are likely to be other accounts as well. Of course the ratio of fixed vs rotary in not in the Helo's favor Pain Grr.. not that it matters since this has long become a mute point but... Not the SAAF but the Rhodisian AF and certainly not a Zimbabwe (Rhodesia became Zimbabwe) Defender, but one of the countries surrounding Rhodesia. The account is in a book titled "The Chopper Boys of Africa". Mostly a coffee table picture book, but the account should be verifiable if anyone cares. Pain I don't, so don't ask |
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 |