ATFE to produce anti-rocketry video

On Wed, 05 Nov 2003 18:08:04 +0000, Alan Jones wrote:

Ahah! I sit corrected :)
Thanks!

I _think_ some units got built (there are references to it being plonked on an AMX 30 chassis) but the information scarcity (short of a subscription to Jane's) seems to indicate that it indeed went nowhere.

Well, hey... it's French ;)

Yes, my description of it as a "hittile" was incorrect even though the rockets themselves were unguided.

You expend 32-64 missiles to get one incoming high-speed bogey... giving you 1-2 shots per magazine... which takes half a minute to reload...

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Except you also failed to READ the part about HIGH POWER rocket motors.
--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"High power" is a Tripoli Construct. I know. I was THERE.
To ATF any and all propellant actuated devices are EXEMPT. Period. Why are they not ALSO exempt to TRA and NAR?
Answer: morons.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 00:47:32 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

As in your other post this imaginary bugaboo of a "high power" vs. model rocket seems to mean something to you.
It don't mean a damn thing as far as the technical requirements for a direct-fire rocket weapon are concerned.
The fact I stated is a simple one, and irrefutable.
Here it is again:
Current motors available to the hobbyist DO NOT and CAN NOT match the military grade castings required for direct-fire rocket weapons.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< Except you also failed to READ the part about HIGH POWER rocket motors. >>
Of course, how foolish of us! If it uses "HIGH POWER" motors it wouldn't need targeting/guidance or any other sophisticated hardware -- those "HIGH POWER" motors will just magically guide the rocket to its target!
Give me a break!
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You can be 1000% certain that the test WILL be skewed. With 40 motors, they've got 39 chances to figure out how to do it. Put the plane on a pedistal, and have the rocket giuded by a hidden wire. Put explosives on the plane and have them detonate when the rocket misses the target. Or just video edit the rocket into the plane or vice versa, using ILM to do the special effects. There's as many other ways to do it as there are faked UFO pictures.
    Bob Kaplow    NAR # 18L    TRA # "Impeach the TRA BoD"         >>> To reply, remove the TRABoD! <<< Kaplow Klips & Baffle:    http://nira-rocketry.org/LeadingEdge/Phantom4000.pdf www.encompasserve.org/~kaplow_r/ www.nira-rocketry.org www.nar.org
Save Model Rocketry from the HSA! http://www.space-rockets.com/congress.html
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< the US Army tested unguided rockets with a lot more horsepower than a J350 against moving aerial targets in the 50's with a ZERO hit rate. >>
Which is why I suspect they probably are going to rig their little demo in some way to ensure they get the results they want.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (Bruce Kirchner) wrote in

Perhaps single rocket launches. What about a 12 rocket launch from a close range?
--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Subject: Re: ATFE to produce anti-rocketry video
Newsgroups: rec.models.rockets Date: Wed, 05 Nov 2003 21:29:58 -0500
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 00:45:47 +0000, Jim Yanik wrote:

Er... you're fabricating your specifications on the fly... even worse than the NATF :)
What are you firing in batches of 12, at what are you firing at, and how close is "close range"?
Give me answers and I'll give you a CEP.
You can do anything with anything... if you rig things right.
And what does this have to do with BATF's snit fits over being challenged on this matter... and their wildly impossible claims about hobby or sport rockets?
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

J350 at a 5000 foot range target at a 2500 foot range target target at 500 feet and 300mph cross range
These are my estimates of the ATF fraud.

--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 04:40:08 +0000, Jerry Irvine wrote:

The engines in question. Check.
Assumimg Cirrus Darts for launch vehicle.

Altitude. Check.

Relative velocity. Check

Medium-to-long range for a J350?
er... You forgot target apparent area...
We'll use a 747 as "standard commercial airliner Mk. I"... before the anti-terrorist-anti-aircraft retrofits :)
What type of drone were they subbing? (goes to top of thread...) Hmmm... not in original post. Any data?

I'd call that medium range...
Let's stick in values for 1000 feet too... that'll give us three points to illustrate the drop-off.

Cranking numbers.
"Ah'll be bach!"
(Drone type or at least size estimates would help prevent BATF handwaving "commercial airliner would be much easier to hit" crap.)
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Assume a Cessna 172 side view or front view (not top or bottom) Assume a "preditor".
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sat, 08 Nov 2003 09:49:20 -0800, Jerry Irvine wrote:

Ok. Cessna 172 data is easy, but why a minumized-profile scenario? I was working under the "van parked along the runway axis" scenario.
If you're not under the flight path then hitting the target drops from "nearly impossible" to "frickin' ridiculous".
BTW... launch exhaust output from 12 J's vs. the volume of even a large van gives... interesting... pressure numbers. Interesting, that is, when you consider the heat content....
And what have predatory editors got to do with it? ;)
A Predator drone, however, has a few available stats.
--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do analysis on two edges of a probability envelope so we can see if the final fraud numbers they publish are even "in the ballpark" which they most certainly will not be.
Jerry
--
Jerry Irvine, Box 1242, Claremont, California 91711 USA
Opinion, the whole thing. <mail to: snipped-for-privacy@gte.net>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
ly impossible" to "frickin' ridiculous".

Hmmm... a Dodge Piston Launcher (tm)?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<< Perhaps single rocket launches. What about a 12 rocket launch from a close range?>>
Define "close". Then explain how a terrorist would get a van-load of rockets that close to a runway without attracting any attention.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 06 Nov 2003 03:14:27 GMT, snipped-for-privacy@aol.com (RayDunakin) wrote:

Many commercial US airports have runways and flight patterns that reequire airlines to fly over public highways at low speeds and altitudes with massive fuel loads and hundreds of inocent passengers. Your van might attract attention after it is too late.
Alan
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Thu, 06 Nov 2003 21:55:30 +0000, Alan Jones wrote:

There it is again... that disturbing lack of numbers.
What are "low speeds and altitudes"?
Given that knowledge will the terrorists have real-time updates on a targets position,,, or will they aim manually?
The more real numbers you have the stupider this idea looks.

--
Chuck Stewart
"Anime-style catgirls: Threat? Menace? Or just studying algebra?"
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
(RayDunakin) wrote:

Take-off speeds for commercial aircraft are less then 200 MPH. Say 150MPH.
Landing speeds would be similar. Landing would be the best time for an attack.
--
Jim Yanik,NRA member
jyanik-at-kua.net
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Landing speed is slightly over 200 mph........over 300 feet per second. I don't know V1 or V2 for a 747 takeoff but they should easy enough to find, probably slightly lower but accelerating.
Landing would be best for an attack? Why? Because of speed? No. Because you can at least see the thing in the air but you have no reference point. Takeoff you have difficulty picking up the target but you have reference points.
So trying to hit a target moving at a football field per second from 1,000-2,000-3,000 feet below means the plane moves 1' for every 3' or 6' or 9' you must adjust for in vertical providing your timing is correct and no wind shear, wind gusts, windcocking is involved. I believe the smarter option would be for bulletproof glass in front of the pilot since it will reduce any threat of a shoot down from a sniper rifle. Rifled slugs are more accurate and have a longer range with more precision........then there's the night scenario for a rifle. Night vision is sold to consumers, correct? ;-)
These silly scenarios of a cardboard rocket killing a jet are starting to get boring and 'chicken little-like'....... I see a BS agency running scared, knowing they look like idiots and moving toward paranoia and desperation. But of course they have taxpayer dollars to spend. Maybe it's time to write to ABC news and the segment "it's your money" which makes buffoons of government tax dollar fraud.
--

Chuck Rudy

VooDoo Digital Productions
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.