The RAAF came close to sending a fully armed fighter jet to shoot down a
light plane during last year's Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting.
The light plane was detected flying towards restricted air space around
the conference venue. Air Commodore Dave Pietsch said a fully armed
F/A-18 Hornet fighter was prepared to intercept the aircraft and
commanders had full authority to order the Hornet to shoot it down.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/28/1062050611557.html

Was reported in the media at the time.

Cheers
Peter Cokley

David Bromage > wrote in message
.. .
> The RAAF came close to sending a fully armed fighter jet to shoot down a
> light plane during last year's Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting.
> The light plane was detected flying towards restricted air space around
> the conference venue. Air Commodore Dave Pietsch said a fully armed
> F/A-18 Hornet fighter was prepared to intercept the aircraft and
> commanders had full authority to order the Hornet to shoot it down.
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/28/1062050611557.html
>

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 12:59:14 +1000, "Peter and Susan"
> wrote:

>Was reported in the media at the time.
>
>Cheers
>Peter Cokley

Can you tell us where please?

I don't recall it being discussed here and I can't find anything via
Google either.

Thanks in advance
Vector

>
>David Bromage > wrote in message
.. .
>> The RAAF came close to sending a fully armed fighter jet to shoot down a
>> light plane during last year's Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting.
>> The light plane was detected flying towards restricted air space around
>> the conference venue. Air Commodore Dave Pietsch said a fully armed
>> F/A-18 Hornet fighter was prepared to intercept the aircraft and
>> commanders had full authority to order the Hornet to shoot it down.
>>
>> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/28/1062050611557.html
>>
>

>commanders had full authority to order the Hornet to shoot it down.

Certainly they have the authority. This does not mean they'd exercise
that authority.

In the U.S., to judge by a recent incident, the intercepting a/c are
configured for slow flight. They first try to contact the offending
a/c on the designated emergency channels, including 121.5 civil.
(Pilots are required to monitor 121.5 "if able"; I'm not able, so
don't do it. Instead I look around a lot.) The next step is to fire
red flares. I'm not sure about the step after that, because to the
best of my knowledge it has happened. Most likely it involves bouncing
the lightplane around in fighter-induced turbulence. I doubt that the
F-15/16/18 would go straight to missiles hot.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

Vector > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 12:59:14 +1000, "Peter and Susan"
> > wrote:>
> >Was reported in the media at the time.> >
> >Cheers
> >Peter Cokley
>
> Can you tell us where please?>
> I don't recall it being discussed here and I can't find anything via
> Google either.>
> Thanks in advance
> Vector

I read the Courier Mail which is the main paper in QLD and watch the evening
news on TV. I recall this story made the Sth East QLD news [paper?] at the
time. I seem to recall a feature article in the paper [usually mid section
of paper somewhere around the Letters to Editor; not front news section]
about the RAAF activities at the Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting.
The event happened in Sth East QLD which is where I live so maybe it didn't
make the NSW or VIC papers at the time. Some of the things I read in the
paper regarding aviation in Sth East QLD don't always get a mention on this
newsgroup.

Cheers
Peter Cokley

"David Bromage" > wrote in message
.. .
> The RAAF came close

"came close"

> to sending a fully armed fighter jet

Which didn't even take off.

> to shoot down a
> light plane during last year's Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting.

From WLM.............which wouldn't have got there in time to do squat.

> The light plane was detected flying towards restricted air space around
> the conference venue. Air Commodore Dave Pietsch said a fully armed
> F/A-18 Hornet fighter was prepared to intercept the aircraft and
> commanders had full authority to order the Hornet to shoot it down.
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/28/1062050611557.html



--
The Raven
http://www.80scartoons.co.uk/batfinkquote.mp3
** President of the ozemail.* and uunet.* NG's
** since August 15th 2000.

>"The Raven" > wrote:
>>"David Bromage" > wrote:

>>The RAAF came close

>"came close"

>> to sending a fully armed fighter jet

>Which didn't even take off.

>> to shoot down a light plane during last year's Commonwealth Heads Of
>>Government Meeting.

>From WLM.............which wouldn't have got there in time to do squat.

In the chaotic and paranoid days following 9/11 I was jumped in a
Cessna 210 by an F-15 approx. 30nm south of Miami near Turkey
Point (nuclear) powerplant.

If it took the same amount of time for the F-15 to fly 400nm from
Panama City to Miami as it took me to fly 80nm from Marathon to
Miami the Eagle driver had to have been cruising at more than
800 KIAS.

-Mike Marron

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:54:35 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:

>
>>commanders had full authority to order the Hornet to shoot it down.
>
>Certainly they have the authority. This does not mean they'd exercise
>that authority.
>
>In the U.S., to judge by a recent incident, the intercepting a/c are
>configured for slow flight. They first try to contact the offending
>a/c on the designated emergency channels, including 121.5 civil.
>(Pilots are required to monitor 121.5 "if able"; I'm not able, so
>don't do it. Instead I look around a lot.) The next step is to fire
>red flares. I'm not sure about the step after that, because to the
>best of my knowledge it has happened. Most likely it involves bouncing
>the lightplane around in fighter-induced turbulence. I doubt that the
>F-15/16/18 would go straight to missiles hot.
It is not clear how effective a missle would be. A small aircraft
doesn't have much of a heat signature,and what there is greatly
reduced by the turbulence produced by airflow. Exhaust is at the
front.

In addition, the speeds are so low, that you don't get any leading
edge heating. In short I am not at all convinced that an IR guided
missile would be able to lock onto a prop powered 100hp aircraft. It
just isn't much of an IR or a radar target...

These things often don't have much of a radar signature. There is the
Cessna that made it all the way to Moscow during the cold war and
landed in Red Square....

matt weber wrote:
> In addition, the speeds are so low, that you don't get any leading
> edge heating. In short I am not at all convinced that an IR guided
> missile would be able to lock onto a prop powered 100hp aircraft. It
> just isn't much of an IR or a radar target...

Plus speeds are so low that it would be hard to line up a cannot shot.
This was the problem the RAAF had with the pilotless Auster in 1955. The
Auster was going 30mph slower than the stall speed of a Meteor.

Cheers
David

> >From WLM.............which wouldn't have got there in time to do squat.

They were acctualy based at Amberley, about 6 minutes away, duing the
meeting.

> I see nothing about flares or bouncing aircraft around in
>turbulence, just the international standard procedures which have been
>in effect for years, if not generations.

Three red flares were released by the intercepting a/c in the recent
incident (a pilot busting a presidential TFR). I am sure that even a
22-year-old fighter pilot fresh out of training would find an
intermediate step between the textbook warnings and the shoot-down.

If not, why have there been no shoot-downs in the U.S. since 9/11?
There have been plenty of incursions.


all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

>Surely you are not suggesting the Australian Government deployed a
>toothless RAAF FA/18 to pretend it was protecting (among other CHOGM
>notables) HM QEII and that the armed one was still on the ground?

As I recall, some of the intercepting aircraft on 9/11 in the U.S.
weren't armed. There was a big hoo-hah at the time as to whether they
would have been ordered to crash into the airliner, had they reached
it in time.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"matt weber" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:54:35 -0400, Cub Driver >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>commanders had full authority to order the Hornet to shoot it down.
> >
> >Certainly they have the authority. This does not mean they'd exercise
> >that authority.
> >
> >In the U.S., to judge by a recent incident, the intercepting a/c are
> >configured for slow flight. They first try to contact the offending
> >a/c on the designated emergency channels, including 121.5 civil.
> >(Pilots are required to monitor 121.5 "if able"; I'm not able, so
> >don't do it. Instead I look around a lot.) The next step is to fire
> >red flares. I'm not sure about the step after that, because to the
> >best of my knowledge it has happened. Most likely it involves bouncing
> >the lightplane around in fighter-induced turbulence. I doubt that the
> >F-15/16/18 would go straight to missiles hot.
> It is not clear how effective a missle would be. A small aircraft
> doesn't have much of a heat signature,and what there is greatly
> reduced by the turbulence produced by airflow. Exhaust is at the
> front.
>
> In addition, the speeds are so low, that you don't get any leading
> edge heating. In short I am not at all convinced that an IR guided
> missile would be able to lock onto a prop powered 100hp aircraft. It
> just isn't much of an IR or a radar target...
>

IR missiles have no problem in homing in on the heat signature
of a lycoming engine

> These things often don't have much of a radar signature. There is the
> Cessna that made it all the way to Moscow during the cold war and
> landed in Red Square....

Which has nothing to do with radar signature, they show quite nicely
on ATC radars let alone military sets, the problem with the Cessna
in Moscow was more political indecision than anything technical

Keith

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 07:03:37 -0400, Cub Driver >
wrote:

>
>>Surely you are not suggesting the Australian Government deployed a
>>toothless RAAF FA/18 to pretend it was protecting (among other CHOGM
>>notables) HM QEII and that the armed one was still on the ground?
>
>As I recall, some of the intercepting aircraft on 9/11 in the U.S.
>weren't armed. There was a big hoo-hah at the time as to whether they
>would have been ordered to crash into the airliner, had they reached
>it in time.

At the time the last aircraft crashed on 9/11 there was not a single
armed fighter aircraft on the East Coast of the USA. The aircraft that
were sent to intercept had no weapons except the aircraft itself to
attack with. None of them made it in time to even intercept.

That is corret, NOT ONE. Nor was there a single operable air to air
missile on the East Coast either. The first Aircraft that actually
had live ammuntion doesn't get off the gound until about 10:15AM, and
the first fully armed aircraft (With AIM9's) doesn't get airborne
until about 10:30. The AIM9's had to be pulled from storage, and
assembled for use.

It is something that no one wants to talk about. We have spent
trillions for defense, yet when one was needed there was not a
single armed aircraft even parked on the ground anywhere in the
Eastern Half of the USA...

I suppose it is a good thing the Russians never attacked...

On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:18:13 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"matt weber" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 06:54:35 -0400, Cub Driver >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >>commanders had full authority to order the Hornet to shoot it down.
>> >
>> >Certainly they have the authority. This does not mean they'd exercise
>> >that authority.
>> >
>> >In the U.S., to judge by a recent incident, the intercepting a/c are
>> >configured for slow flight. They first try to contact the offending
>> >a/c on the designated emergency channels, including 121.5 civil.
>> >(Pilots are required to monitor 121.5 "if able"; I'm not able, so
>> >don't do it. Instead I look around a lot.) The next step is to fire
>> >red flares. I'm not sure about the step after that, because to the
>> >best of my knowledge it has happened. Most likely it involves bouncing
>> >the lightplane around in fighter-induced turbulence. I doubt that the
>> >F-15/16/18 would go straight to missiles hot.
>> It is not clear how effective a missle would be. A small aircraft
>> doesn't have much of a heat signature,and what there is greatly
>> reduced by the turbulence produced by airflow. Exhaust is at the
>> front.
>>
>> In addition, the speeds are so low, that you don't get any leading
>> edge heating. In short I am not at all convinced that an IR guided
>> missile would be able to lock onto a prop powered 100hp aircraft. It
>> just isn't much of an IR or a radar target...
>>
>
>IR missiles have no problem in homing in on the heat signature
>of a lycoming engine
>
>> These things often don't have much of a radar signature. There is the
>> Cessna that made it all the way to Moscow during the cold war and
>> landed in Red Square....
>
>Which has nothing to do with radar signature, they show quite nicely
>on ATC radars let alone military sets, the problem with the Cessna
>in Moscow was more political indecision than anything technical
They show up on most ATC radars only because they have a transponder.
Note the difficulties US ATC had in locating 757's and 767's on 9/11
after the transponders were turned off, and 757 or 767 has a far far
larger radar cross section than a single engine cessna.

ATC radars generally only see either very large targets, or very
cooperative targets (transponders).

>matt weber > wrote:

>Note the difficulties US ATC had in locating 757's and 767's on 9/11
>after the transponders were turned off, and 757 or 767 has a far far
>larger radar cross section than a single engine cessna.

After 9/11, I heard them ask aircraft in the vicinity to assist with
identifying unindentified primary targets on their scopes. And
they didn't seem to have any difficulties painting me as a primary
target whenever my transponder went inop (which was not all that
infrequent in those old single-engine C-210's).

-Mike Marron

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 21:20:03 +1000, "The Raven"
> wrote:

>"David Bromage" > wrote in message
.. .
>> The RAAF came close
>
>"came close"
>
>> to sending a fully armed fighter jet
>
>Which didn't even take off.
>
>> to shoot down a
>> light plane during last year's Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting.
>
>From WLM.............which wouldn't have got there in time to do squat.
>

Except that it was sitting ready at Amberley on alert!

And in the loop of threat analysis based on dedicated radar
surveillance of a specific intrusion zone established around the
meeting location.

They were a tad more prepared for something other than an event
resembling a routine ATC 'unauthorised penetration of controlled
airspace by a lightie' scenario.

"smithxpj" > wrote in message
...
> Except that it was sitting ready at Amberley on alert!
>
> And in the loop of threat analysis based on dedicated radar
> surveillance of a specific intrusion zone established around the
> meeting location.
>
> They were a tad more prepared for something other than an event
> resembling a routine ATC 'unauthorised penetration of controlled
> airspace by a lightie' scenario.


I wonder how much damage the supersonic charge to the intercept point would
have caused?

JB

"matt weber" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 07:03:37 -0400, Cub Driver >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >>Surely you are not suggesting the Australian Government deployed a
> >>toothless RAAF FA/18 to pretend it was protecting (among other CHOGM
> >>notables) HM QEII and that the armed one was still on the ground?
> >
> >As I recall, some of the intercepting aircraft on 9/11 in the U.S.
> >weren't armed. There was a big hoo-hah at the time as to whether they
> >would have been ordered to crash into the airliner, had they reached
> >it in time.
>
> At the time the last aircraft crashed on 9/11 there was not a single
> armed fighter aircraft on the East Coast of the USA. The aircraft that
> were sent to intercept had no weapons except the aircraft itself to
> attack with. None of them made it in time to even intercept.
>
> That is corret, NOT ONE. Nor was there a single operable air to air
> missile on the East Coast either. The first Aircraft that actually
> had live ammuntion doesn't get off the gound until about 10:15AM, and
> the first fully armed aircraft (With AIM9's) doesn't get airborne
> until about 10:30. The AIM9's had to be pulled from storage, and
> assembled for use.
>
> It is something that no one wants to talk about. We have spent
> trillions for defense, yet when one was needed there was not a
> single armed aircraft even parked on the ground anywhere in the
> Eastern Half of the USA...
>
> I suppose it is a good thing the Russians never attacked...

Ahhhhh yes, there's a lot to be said for 20/20 hindsight.

--
Islam, a cult obsessed with the imagined superiority of it's culture and
dismayed at the inferiority of it's power.

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 14:12:49 +1000, "Brash"
> wrote:
>
>Ahhhhh yes, there's a lot to be said for 20/20 hindsight.

Jeez, don't tell me you can look thru that thing as well.

>It is something that no one wants to talk about. We have spent
>trillions for defense, yet when one was needed there was not a
>single armed aircraft even parked on the ground anywhere in the
>Eastern Half of the USA...

Well, shucks, that's called "living in a time of peace".

>I suppose it is a good thing the Russians never attacked...

Prior to 1990, I'm sure there were plenty of armed interceptors
around. Don't you remember how delighted we all were, that in the
grand new era there would be no need to spend trillions on defending
from attack by an imagined foe, so we would be safe from broken arrows
and suchlike hazards attendant upon our Cold War footing?

What a dizzy decade that was, when the only thing we had to puzzle us
was the peculiarities of the president's member.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"matt weber" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:18:13 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>

> They show up on most ATC radars only because they have a transponder.

Nonsense they show up on primary radar very well

> Note the difficulties US ATC had in locating 757's and 767's on 9/11
> after the transponders were turned off, and 757 or 767 has a far far
> larger radar cross section than a single engine cessna.
>

Again this is nonsense, the radar tracks of those aircraft have been
produced in evidence primary radar is more than adequate

> ATC radars generally only see either very large targets, or very
> cooperative targets (transponders).

Wrong, ATC radars track light aircraft every day.

Hell the radars of WW2 had no problem tracking aircraft of the
same size, its for damm sure that modern radars are better

Keith

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:11:10 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"matt weber" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:18:13 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>> > wrote:
>>
>
>> They show up on most ATC radars only because they have a transponder.
>
>Nonsense they show up on primary radar very well
>
>> Note the difficulties US ATC had in locating 757's and 767's on 9/11
>> after the transponders were turned off, and 757 or 767 has a far far
>> larger radar cross section than a single engine cessna.
>>
>
>Again this is nonsense, the radar tracks of those aircraft have been
>produced in evidence primary radar is more than adequate
It is more then adequate, as long as they never get more than about 35
miles away from the RADAR.

After that, the combination of the inverse square law, and the very
limited RCS of many light aircraft makes them just about impossible to
see. that is one of the reasons that ATC in the USA also receives data
from far more capable military RADAR systems that are not limited by
Civilian energy exposure limits.

Most of the track data for both JFK Jr's crash, and the EgyptAir crash
came not from civilian ATC radars, but Military Radars which share
data with ATC.

I suggest you do the arithmetic sometime on what sort of power you
need to radiate to be able to get a reliably detectable return on a 1
m^2 RCS at 50km. 1m^2 is fairly typical of Cessa single. Some of the
older aircraft with fabric instead of metal are considerably smaller
RCS.

After you have done that calculation, decide how near you would like
to live to that particular radar.

>> ATC radars generally only see either very large targets, or very
>> cooperative targets (transponders).
>
>Wrong, ATC radars track light aircraft every day.
Only at short range.

>
>Hell the radars of WW2 had no problem tracking aircraft of the
>same size, its for damm sure that modern radars are better
My father assures me that was not the case, and he WAS the Radar
officer on a US Carrier in WW II. I'll take his word on that subject
over yours anytime

A TBD or a Betty could be seen at about 100 miles, but they are a
whole lot bigger than a Cessna 172

The Radar in an F16 in Air to Air mode has a 50% probability of
detecting a 1 m^2 RCS at 40km..

>> They show up on most ATC radars only because they have a transponder.
>
>Nonsense they show up on primary radar very well

As posted, I seemed to be invisible to the PSM tower when I asked
permission to descend through the Delta airspace earlier this summer.
Flying a rag & tube Cub with no transponder. Can't speak for spam
cans--all the local ones have transponders anyhow.

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"matt weber" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:11:10 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"matt weber" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:18:13 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >
> >> They show up on most ATC radars only because they have a transponder.
> >
> >Nonsense they show up on primary radar very well
> >
> >> Note the difficulties US ATC had in locating 757's and 767's on 9/11
> >> after the transponders were turned off, and 757 or 767 has a far far
> >> larger radar cross section than a single engine cessna.
> >>
> >
> >Again this is nonsense, the radar tracks of those aircraft have been
> >produced in evidence primary radar is more than adequate
> It is more then adequate, as long as they never get more than about 35
> miles away from the RADAR.
>

Actual range depends on height, RCS , transmitted power and
the sensitivity of the radar, However its a matter of historical
fact that during WW2 the primitive Chain Home system could
detect aircraft out to 200 miles

http://www.radarpages.co.uk/mob/chl/chl.htm

However your original claim was that they couldnt be seen
at all unless they had a transponder !

> After that, the combination of the inverse square law, and the very
> limited RCS of many light aircraft makes them just about impossible to
> see. that is one of the reasons that ATC in the USA also receives data
> from far more capable military RADAR systems that are not limited by
> Civilian energy exposure limits.
>

Come now make up your mind , are they impossible to see
or is it just that the range is limited ?

> Most of the track data for both JFK Jr's crash, and the EgyptAir crash
> came not from civilian ATC radars, but Military Radars which share
> data with ATC.
>
> I suggest you do the arithmetic sometime on what sort of power you
> need to radiate to be able to get a reliably detectable return on a 1
> m^2 RCS at 50km. 1m^2 is fairly typical of Cessa single. Some of the
> older aircraft with fabric instead of metal are considerably smaller
> RCS.
>

A Cessna in the head on aspect may indeed have an RCS as small
as 1 m2 , this is around the same as an F-16 !


> After you have done that calculation, decide how near you would like
> to live to that particular radar.
>
> >> ATC radars generally only see either very large targets, or very
> >> cooperative targets (transponders).
> >
> >Wrong, ATC radars track light aircraft every day.
> Only at short range.
>

Take a look at the free space coverage diagram for the
Raytheon ASR-23SS surveilance radar at

http://www.raytheon.com/products/asr23ss/ref_docs/asr23.pdf

You'll find that this civil aradt ssytem is quite capable of detecting
a 2 sq m target at 10,000 ft at 40 nautical miles

Range isnt the problem, height is, if the aircraft is down in the
weeds you will indeed be limited to 20 miles or less

Thats why we have AWACS

Keith

Keith

> >
> >Hell the radars of WW2 had no problem tracking aircraft of the
> >same size, its for damm sure that modern radars are better
> My father assures me that was not the case, and he WAS the Radar
> officer on a US Carrier in WW II. I'll take his word on that subject
> over yours anytime
>

Yet 1930's era radar could detect an Me-109 over France from
the UK, the Me-109 has a wingspan roughly the same as a Cessna
at 32 ft

The US Army SCR-270 could detect aircraft at around 120 miles
out. One such set detected the Pearl Harbor raid 30 minutes before the
attack.

> A TBD or a Betty could be seen at about 100 miles, but they are a
> whole lot bigger than a Cessna 172
>

A Cessna Skylane has a wingspan of 35 ft, a TBD had a wingspan of
50ft and an Aichi Val a wingspan of 47.1 ft

> The Radar in an F16 in Air to Air mode has a 50% probability of
> detecting a 1 m^2 RCS at 40km..
>

We arent talking about an F-16 radar, we are talking about the
more capable search radars at ground stations.

Keith

I have been waiting for someone to mention the drug runner intercepted or
chased by the RAAF C130 [?] up around Darwin many years ago. Something about
relative speeds and the C130 having to slow down enough?

Cheers
Peter Cokley

David Bromage > wrote in message
.. .
> The RAAF came close to sending a fully armed fighter jet to shoot down a
> light plane during last year's Commonwealth Heads Of Government Meeting.
> The light plane was detected flying towards restricted air space around
> the conference venue. Air Commodore Dave Pietsch said a fully armed
> F/A-18 Hornet fighter was prepared to intercept the aircraft and
> commanders had full authority to order the Hornet to shoot it down.
>
> http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/28/1062050611557.html
>

Keith Willshaw wrote in message ...
>We arent talking about an F-16 radar, we are talking about the
>more capable search radars at ground stations.
>
>Keith

And now you will explain how FA18s picked up and intercepted an intruder (a
Cherokee Arrow - about a week ago) without having "more capable search
radars at ground stations" during a live firing exercise at a range, using
their on-board stuff. When, in fact, the intruder had disappeared from
civil radar some time before.

In other words, you don't have the faintest ****ing clue about what you're
mouthing off about.

But since you know it all, you can doubtless nominate the range involved,
the destination of the Arrow and the actions taken by the FA18 pilots and
civil ATC.

"more capable search radars at ground stations"

- mmm - radar is not really your forte, eh?.......

or do you think they are going to chop the wings and u/c off the Wedgetail
and sell that for scrap while they set up the remainder propped up by a
coupla fenceposts on a deserted airfield?

Keith, baby - you just stick to raising guinea pigs and leave the wheels and
levers stuff to people who have a clue, eh?

"RT" > wrote in message
...
>
> Keith Willshaw wrote in message ...
> >We arent talking about an F-16 radar, we are talking about the
> >more capable search radars at ground stations.
> >
> >Keith
>
> And now you will explain how FA18s picked up and intercepted an intruder
(a
> Cherokee Arrow - about a week ago) without having "more capable search
> radars at ground stations" during a live firing exercise at a range,
using
> their on-board stuff. When, in fact, the intruder had disappeared from
> civil radar some time before.
>

Not being familiar with that precise incident I'll refrain from comment

> In other words, you don't have the faintest ****ing clue about what you're
> mouthing off about.
>
> But since you know it all, you can doubtless nominate the range involved,
> the destination of the Arrow and the actions taken by the FA18 pilots and
> civil ATC.
>

See above but is normal for fighters to be vectored to their tagets
as AI radars tend to have limited cones of coverage

> "more capable search radars at ground stations"
>
> - mmm - radar is not really your forte, eh?.......
>
> or do you think they are going to chop the wings and u/c off the Wedgetail
> and sell that for scrap while they set up the remainder propped up by a
> coupla fenceposts on a deserted airfield?
>

Nope thats why I mentioned AWACS as being used for detecting
low flying aircraft

> Keith, baby - you just stick to raising guinea pigs and leave the wheels
and
> levers stuff to people who have a clue, eh?
>
>

Resort to ad-hominem ignored

Keith

"Peter and Susan" > wrote in message
...
> I have been waiting for someone to mention the drug runner intercepted or
> chased by the RAAF C130 [?] up around Darwin many years ago. Something
about
> relative speeds and the C130 having to slow down enough?
>
> Cheers
> Peter Cokley
>

That rather depends on what the intent of the intercepting aircraft
is. The cubans had little problem shooting down a couple of Cessna's
in 1996 as I recall. They had been detected on both Cuban and US
radar systems.

Keith

David Bromage wrote:

> matt weber wrote:
> > In addition, the speeds are so low, that you don't get any leading
> > edge heating. In short I am not at all convinced that an IR guided
> > missile would be able to lock onto a prop powered 100hp aircraft. It
> > just isn't much of an IR or a radar target...
>
> Plus speeds are so low that it would be hard to line up a cannot shot.
> This was the problem the RAAF had with the pilotless Auster in 1955. The
> Auster was going 30mph slower than the stall speed of a Meteor.
>
> Cheers
> David

So... maybe they should have stood off a little ways and treated it as a
stationary target.....

Coop

Peter and Susan wrote:
> I have been waiting for someone to mention the drug runner intercepted or
> chased by the RAAF C130 [?] up around Darwin many years ago.
Something about
> relative speeds and the C130 having to slow down enough?

All the RAAF could possibly do is to track it and wait for it to land.
They would have to call in police or Customs to make an arrest.

Cheers
David

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 11:51:53 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"matt weber" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 11:11:10 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"matt weber" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 12:18:13 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >
>> >> They show up on most ATC radars only because they have a transponder.
>> >
>> >Nonsense they show up on primary radar very well
>> >
>> >> Note the difficulties US ATC had in locating 757's and 767's on 9/11
>> >> after the transponders were turned off, and 757 or 767 has a far far
>> >> larger radar cross section than a single engine cessna.
>> >>
>> >
>> >Again this is nonsense, the radar tracks of those aircraft have been
>> >produced in evidence primary radar is more than adequate
>> It is more then adequate, as long as they never get more than about 35
>> miles away from the RADAR.
>>
>
>Actual range depends on height, RCS , transmitted power and
>the sensitivity of the radar, However its a matter of historical
>fact that during WW2 the primitive Chain Home system could
>detect aircraft out to 200 miles
>
>http://www.radarpages.co.uk/mob/chl/chl.htm
>
>However your original claim was that they couldnt be seen
>at all unless they had a transponder !
>
>> After that, the combination of the inverse square law, and the very
>> limited RCS of many light aircraft makes them just about impossible to
>> see. that is one of the reasons that ATC in the USA also receives data
>> from far more capable military RADAR systems that are not limited by
>> Civilian energy exposure limits.
>>
>
>Come now make up your mind , are they impossible to see
>or is it just that the range is limited ?
>
>> Most of the track data for both JFK Jr's crash, and the EgyptAir crash
>> came not from civilian ATC radars, but Military Radars which share
>> data with ATC.
>>
>> I suggest you do the arithmetic sometime on what sort of power you
>> need to radiate to be able to get a reliably detectable return on a 1
>> m^2 RCS at 50km. 1m^2 is fairly typical of Cessa single. Some of the
>> older aircraft with fabric instead of metal are considerably smaller
>> RCS.
>>
>
>A Cessna in the head on aspect may indeed have an RCS as small
>as 1 m2 , this is around the same as an F-16 !
>
>
>> After you have done that calculation, decide how near you would like
>> to live to that particular radar.
>>
>> >> ATC radars generally only see either very large targets, or very
>> >> cooperative targets (transponders).
>> >
>> >Wrong, ATC radars track light aircraft every day.
>> Only at short range.
>>
>
>Take a look at the free space coverage diagram for the
>Raytheon ASR-23SS surveilance radar at
>
>http://www.raytheon.com/products/asr23ss/ref_docs/asr23.pdf
And how may cars have you owned that have actually achieved the fuel
economy advertised?
>
>You'll find that this civil aradt ssytem is quite capable of detecting
>a 2 sq m target at 10,000 ft at 40 nautical miles
Which means 1 m^2 target at 28 nm...
>
>Range isnt the problem, height is, if the aircraft is down in the
>weeds you will indeed be limited to 20 miles or less
>
>Thats why we have AWACS
>
>Keith
>
>Keith
>
>> >
>> >Hell the radars of WW2 had no problem tracking aircraft of the
>> >same size, its for damm sure that modern radars are better
>> My father assures me that was not the case, and he WAS the Radar
>> officer on a US Carrier in WW II. I'll take his word on that subject
>> over yours anytime
>>
>
>Yet 1930's era radar could detect an Me-109 over France from
>the UK, the Me-109 has a wingspan roughly the same as a Cessna
>at 32 ft
You are missing a very suble, but very important point that is
involved in your argument, and the Chain home argument. Microwave
radars are a relatively late development in WWII.

>
>The US Army SCR-270 could detect aircraft at around 120 miles
>out. One such set detected the Pearl Harbor raid 30 minutes before the
>attack.

Neither Chain home, or Ship, or airborne radars or the SCR-270 were
microwave radars by any stretch of the imagination for most of WWII.
VHF RADARS relied on much more 'interesting' effects to work.


With a Microwave radar, the whole game is RCS, with a VHF radar
(typically 40-70Mhz), if you have to depend upon RCS you are blind.
VHF radar relies on picking a wavelength that produced a resonance
with one or more parts of the airframe, turning them into very
efficient re-radiators, making them appear many many times larger then
the real RCS.

Later in WWII, as Microwave radars became available, chaff was
dispensed as 1/4 wave aluminum foil. It produces such strong
reflections that it blinded the radar. It drove the AGC to the point
where the radar couldn't see anything that wasn't the chaff. The point
is the resonance caused the chaff to appear to have much much larger
RCS then it really had, just as various parts of the airframe did for
VHF radar.



Such technology was often used in towed reflector arrays, where a
few such tuned reflectors towed behind a frigate gave it the radar
signature of an Aircraft carrier! So while you could pick a frequency
that might be able to see a Cessna single well, it would be almost
blind to anything that didn't have similar size, or odd multiple sizes
of the airframe feature being used.
>
>> A TBD or a Betty could be seen at about 100 miles, but they are a
>> whole lot bigger than a Cessna 172
>>
>
>A Cessna Skylane has a wingspan of 35 ft, a TBD had a wingspan of
>50ft and an Aichi Val a wingspan of 47.1 ft
Perhaps, but the wing probaly isn't the feature they were relying on.
For a VHF radar you need something that is an odd multiple of 1/4 wave
for it to work well. AT 40Mhz, that is roughly 1.9, 5.7, or 9.5 meters
>
>> The Radar in an F16 in Air to Air mode has a 50% probability of
>> detecting a 1 m^2 RCS at 40km..
>>
>
>We arent talking about an F-16 radar, we are talking about the
>more capable search radars at ground stations.
I think you'd be surprised at just HOW incompetent many search radars
are. Have you ever used one.

I've operated both a Raytheon and a Siemens search radars. The Siemens
was part of a NATO installation, it was 120Kw, and we were about 60nm
from CPH. It had trouble seeing anything smaller than a D9 at that
range, and the doppler speed information at that range wasn't real
good, +/- about 80kt...

Here's the Aero-News Propwash story about the lightplane intercepted
by a jet fighter. Note the flares.

************************************************** *

It's the kind of trip
that you could almost make in your sleep. Maitland "Sam" Wirig
finished painting his house near Sequim (WA) last week, jumped in
his Cessna 172, and headed for his other house in Kent (WA). He
pointed the nose southeast and probably spent some time trying to
clear the smell of paint from his nostrils.

Imagine Sam's surprise, then, when he looked off the wing and
saw that he was being paced by an F-15 configured for very slow
flight. "I saw this great big F-15 (fighter jet) sitting right off
my wing tip, about 50 yards away, going really slow," he said.
"I thought, 'My God, what the hell is the problem?'"

The problem was, Sam unknowingly busted one of those pop-up
Presidential TFRs. The Bremerton Sun reports he had no idea
President Bush was visiting Seattle Friday. He took off from a
private, uncontrolled airstrip in Sequim and apparently didn't
check the NOTAMs (if, in fact, reasonable notice was even
available...). As you know, aircraft are generally banned from
within 10 miles of the president. From 10 to 30 miles out, aircraft
must have special permission.

Wirig says the F-15
pilot, with whom he was not in radio contact, kept lowering his
landing gear and flaps, trying to get the GA pilot to understand.
"I couldn't figure out what he was trying to get me to do," said
the 69-year-old pilot.

"All you can do is look at them and try to figure out what
they're trying to say. I know I was probably not where I was
supposed to be, but I didn't know why."

Then the F-15 fired three flares. Hmmmm, this might be
important. "That really got my attention," Wirig said. "About that
time I decided that Bremerton (National Airport) was a good option.
I figured the next flare might be a Sidewinder (missile)."

Wirig landed at Bremerton National Airport near Gorst (WA). The
F-15 circled overhead until the fighter pilot was certain the 172
had landed. On the ground, deputies from the Kitsap County (WA)
Sheriff's Department were on hand to give Sam a special
greeting.

"It was the first time I've done a traffic stop on an airplane,"
said Deputy Krista McDonald.

After the president left Seattle at 3:15 p.m. local time, Sam
was free to go. "I'm not too proud of it," Wirig, who's been flying
since 1969, said of the experience.

"I'll wait until it all blows over and if I don't hear from the
Secret Service or FAA, then I'll feel better. It was just a lack of
knowledge. I didn't know (Bush) was here."

"I didn't get shot down. That's the good news."

Indeed...
FMI: www.faa.gov

For the WHOLE story, go to
http://www.aero-news.net/news/genav.cfm?ContentBlockID=342c2641-08e3-41c8-9767-9c52c3c544f5&Dynamic=1
all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 22:05:25 +1000, "Peter and Susan"
> wrote:

>I have been waiting for someone to mention the drug runner intercepted or
>chased by the RAAF C130 [?] up around Darwin many years ago. Something about
>relative speeds and the C130 having to slow down enough?

I thought about it, but then, it was unarmed...


....

cheers,

Paul Saccani,
Perth,
Western Australia


old turkish proverb: 'He who tells the truth gets chased out of nine villages'

"matt weber" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 11:51:53 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> > wrote:
>
Me-109 has a wingspan roughly the same as a Cessna
> >at 32 ft
> You are missing a very suble, but very important point that is
> involved in your argument, and the Chain home argument. Microwave
> radars are a relatively late development in WWII.
>
> >
> >The US Army SCR-270 could detect aircraft at around 120 miles
> >out. One such set detected the Pearl Harbor raid 30 minutes before the
> >attack.
>
> Neither Chain home, or Ship, or airborne radars or the SCR-270 were
> microwave radars by any stretch of the imagination for most of WWII.
> VHF RADARS relied on much more 'interesting' effects to work.
>

Quite so

>
> With a Microwave radar, the whole game is RCS, with a VHF radar
> (typically 40-70Mhz), if you have to depend upon RCS you are blind.
> VHF radar relies on picking a wavelength that produced a resonance
> with one or more parts of the airframe, turning them into very
> efficient re-radiators, making them appear many many times larger then
> the real RCS.
>
> Later in WWII, as Microwave radars became available, chaff was
> dispensed as 1/4 wave aluminum foil. It produces such strong
> reflections that it blinded the radar. It drove the AGC to the point
> where the radar couldn't see anything that wasn't the chaff. The point
> is the resonance caused the chaff to appear to have much much larger
> RCS then it really had, just as various parts of the airframe did for
> VHF radar.
>
>

Incorrect

The British used strips of aluminium foil 30cm long by
1.5 cm wide , codename window , to blind the German
radar which was assuredly NOT on microwave frequencies
since they lacked the cavity magnetron

>
> Such technology was often used in towed reflector arrays, where a
> few such tuned reflectors towed behind a frigate gave it the radar
> signature of an Aircraft carrier! So while you could pick a frequency
> that might be able to see a Cessna single well, it would be almost
> blind to anything that didn't have similar size, or odd multiple sizes
> of the airframe feature being used.
> >
> >> A TBD or a Betty could be seen at about 100 miles, but they are a
> >> whole lot bigger than a Cessna 172
> >>
> >
> >A Cessna Skylane has a wingspan of 35 ft, a TBD had a wingspan of
> >50ft and an Aichi Val a wingspan of 47.1 ft
> Perhaps, but the wing probaly isn't the feature they were relying on.
> For a VHF radar you need something that is an odd multiple of 1/4 wave
> for it to work well. AT 40Mhz, that is roughly 1.9, 5.7, or 9.5 meters

Guess what 9.7 metres comes out as in feet

> >
> >> The Radar in an F16 in Air to Air mode has a 50% probability of
> >> detecting a 1 m^2 RCS at 40km..
> >>
> >
> >We arent talking about an F-16 radar, we are talking about the
> >more capable search radars at ground stations.
> I think you'd be surprised at just HOW incompetent many search radars
> are. Have you ever used one.
>

You seem to be forgetting that most aircraft radar see only a
narrow cone ahead of them.

> I've operated both a Raytheon and a Siemens search radars. The Siemens
> was part of a NATO installation, it was 120Kw, and we were about 60nm
> from CPH. It had trouble seeing anything smaller than a D9 at that
> range, and the doppler speed information at that range wasn't real
> good, +/- about 80kt...

So now our range has gone from not seeing light aircraft
at all to 60nm

Keith

"matt weber" > wrote in message
...
>
> >That rather depends on what the intent of the intercepting aircraft
> >is. The cubans had little problem shooting down a couple of Cessna's
> >in 1996 as I recall. They had been detected on both Cuban and US
> >radar systems.
> And both had their transponders turned on... It is easy when the
> transponder is turned on. It is a cooperating target.

In fact both they and the Cuban Migs were tracked on primary radar
as testified to by radar specialist Jeffrey Houlihan of the U.S. Customs
Agency
who as usual was on the lookout for drug smugglers at the time.

Keith

On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 02:29:16 GMT, "JB" > wrote:

>
>"smithxpj" > wrote in message
...
>> Except that it was sitting ready at Amberley on alert!
>>
>> And in the loop of threat analysis based on dedicated radar
>> surveillance of a specific intrusion zone established around the
>> meeting location.
>>
>> They were a tad more prepared for something other than an event
>> resembling a routine ATC 'unauthorised penetration of controlled
>> airspace by a lightie' scenario.
>
>
>I wonder how much damage the supersonic charge to the intercept point would
>have caused?
>
>JB
>

Err...yair, probably would get the local political and public hackles
up a bit I'd imagine.

I ballparked a dash of about 70 nautical miles at, say, 450 knots
giving a rough 10 minute transit. Add in the time for a 'hot-systems'
scramble departure from the ORP and it really gets down to how the
threat to the exclusion zone was managed. It's a fair bet that the
speeds and track of *anything* converging towards the zone that merely
had a whiff of looking like becoming a threat would have set the
wheels in motion.

>In either case, Maroochy Tower would have been part of the events,
>and anyone on the tower frequency would have been fully aware of
>what was happening. Including me. I didn't hear a thing.

Don't you just hate it when people drag *facts* into a perfectly good
uninformed discussion?

all the best -- Dan Ford
email: www.danford.net/letters.htm#9

see the Warbird's Forum at www.warbirdforum.com
and the Piper Cub Forum at www.pipercubforum.com

"matt weber" > wrote in message
...
>
> >That rather depends on what the intent of the intercepting aircraft
> >is. The cubans had little problem shooting down a couple of Cessna's
> >in 1996 as I recall. They had been detected on both Cuban and US
> >radar systems.
> And both had their transponders turned on... It is easy when the
> transponder is turned on. It is a cooperating target.

You do realise that Secondary Surveillance Radar and Primary Radar are
different things right?

A transponder will not make your primary return show up one little bit
brighter. The SSR image at the time I
was in SY was literally superimposed on the same display as the primary
radar, but came
from a different antenna/rx combination. The SSR antenna was visible as
a long narrow rectangle
underneath (or on top of, can't remember now) the primary radar dish.
Newer systems probably
combine the two, but you can have a primary target without the secondary
and vice versa and/or
both together.

BTW, I can assure you from personal observation that single engine all
metal lighties
painted very well on both the Terminal Area and Route Surveillance
Radars at
Sydney KSA in the 80's. The SSR target (when they were squawking) was
obviously
visible a lot further out/lower down than the primary target, but to
suggest they are too
small to show up is simply not so.

The CO
(Ex CAA)

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 07:47:46 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"matt weber" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 1 Sep 2003 11:51:53 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
>> > wrote:
>>
>Me-109 has a wingspan roughly the same as a Cessna
>> >at 32 ft
>> You are missing a very suble, but very important point that is
>> involved in your argument, and the Chain home argument. Microwave
>> radars are a relatively late development in WWII.
>>
>> >
>> >The US Army SCR-270 could detect aircraft at around 120 miles
>> >out. One such set detected the Pearl Harbor raid 30 minutes before the
>> >attack.
>>
>> Neither Chain home, or Ship, or airborne radars or the SCR-270 were
>> microwave radars by any stretch of the imagination for most of WWII.
>> VHF RADARS relied on much more 'interesting' effects to work.
>>
>
>Quite so
>
>>
>> With a Microwave radar, the whole game is RCS, with a VHF radar
>> (typically 40-70Mhz), if you have to depend upon RCS you are blind.
>> VHF radar relies on picking a wavelength that produced a resonance
>> with one or more parts of the airframe, turning them into very
>> efficient re-radiators, making them appear many many times larger then
>> the real RCS.
>>
>> Later in WWII, as Microwave radars became available, chaff was
>> dispensed as 1/4 wave aluminum foil. It produces such strong
>> reflections that it blinded the radar. It drove the AGC to the point
>> where the radar couldn't see anything that wasn't the chaff. The point
>> is the resonance caused the chaff to appear to have much much larger
>> RCS then it really had, just as various parts of the airframe did for
>> VHF radar.
>>
>>
>
>Incorrect
>
>The British used strips of aluminium foil 30cm long by
>1.5 cm wide , codename window , to blind the German
>radar which was assuredly NOT on microwave frequencies
>since they lacked the cavity magnetron
You do not need a cavity magentron to product microwaves, it is a lot
easier to do that way, but I suggest you do some homework on something
called a ring oscillator. It can get you to about 1Ghz, and in fact
that is how a lot of early Microwave radars were operated.

30cm would be a 250Mhz Radar, not microwave, but UHF. It is enough
shorter then VHF radar to behave like a microwave radar.

>> Such technology was often used in towed reflector arrays, where a
>> few such tuned reflectors towed behind a frigate gave it the radar
>> signature of an Aircraft carrier! So while you could pick a frequency
>> that might be able to see a Cessna single well, it would be almost
>> blind to anything that didn't have similar size, or odd multiple sizes
>> of the airframe feature being used.
>> >
>> >> A TBD or a Betty could be seen at about 100 miles, but they are a
>> >> whole lot bigger than a Cessna 172
>> >>
>> >
>> >A Cessna Skylane has a wingspan of 35 ft, a TBD had a wingspan of
>> >50ft and an Aichi Val a wingspan of 47.1 ft
>> Perhaps, but the wing probaly isn't the feature they were relying on.
>> For a VHF radar you need something that is an odd multiple of 1/4 wave
>> for it to work well. AT 40Mhz, that is roughly 1.9, 5.7, or 9.5 meters
>
>Guess what 9.7 metres comes out as in feet
Unless the wing is a single conducting piece, not useful. A good DC
connection is often a poor radio frequency connection. Really needs
to be a single piece, or welded togther to be useful. The connection
between the pieces is a huge impedance discontinuity usually, so it
won't resonate.
>
>> >
>> >> The Radar in an F16 in Air to Air mode has a 50% probability of
>> >> detecting a 1 m^2 RCS at 40km..
>> >>
>> >
>> >We arent talking about an F-16 radar, we are talking about the
>> >more capable search radars at ground stations.
>> I think you'd be surprised at just HOW incompetent many search radars
>> are. Have you ever used one.
>>
>
>You seem to be forgetting that most aircraft radar see only a
>narrow cone ahead of them.
Which is why they are either mechanically or electronically steered,
the result is most actually see a pretty good sized chunk of sky in
front of them unless they have locked onto a target (in which case
they stop scanning).
>
>> I've operated both a Raytheon and a Siemens search radars. The Siemens
>> was part of a NATO installation, it was 120Kw, and we were about 60nm
>> from CPH. It had trouble seeing anything smaller than a D9 at that
>> range, and the doppler speed information at that range wasn't real
>> good, +/- about 80kt...
>
>So now our range has gone from not seeing light aircraft
>at all to 60nm
A D9 has more than 10 times the RCS of a Cessna. That means the
120kw Radar would have trouble seeing a cessna at 20nm. 120Kw radar is
not something I'd advise standing in front of. It isn't BMEWS class,
but it isn't anything to mess with either.
>
>Keith
>

On Tue, 2 Sep 2003 07:55:16 +0100, "Keith Willshaw"
> wrote:

>
>"matt weber" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> >That rather depends on what the intent of the intercepting aircraft
>> >is. The cubans had little problem shooting down a couple of Cessna's
>> >in 1996 as I recall. They had been detected on both Cuban and US
>> >radar systems.
>> And both had their transponders turned on... It is easy when the
>> transponder is turned on. It is a cooperating target.
>
>In fact both they and the Cuban Migs were tracked on primary radar
>as testified to by radar specialist Jeffrey Houlihan of the U.S. Customs
>Agency
>who as usual was on the lookout for drug smugglers at the time.
>
>Keith
>


And Migs did have their IFF on, and it is a safe bet the US knows how
to interrogate it, again, a cooperating target....

>matt weber > wrote:
>>"Keith Willshaw" > wrote:

>>In fact both they and the Cuban Migs were tracked on primary radar
>>as testified to by radar specialist Jeffrey Houlihan of the U.S. Customs
>>Agency who as usual was on the lookout for drug smugglers at the time.

>And Migs did have their IFF on, and it is a safe bet the US knows how
>to interrogate it, again, a cooperating target....

Rest assurred, be it a drug runner in a Cessna or a Cuban in a
MiG, we have the means to keep an eye on the bad guys whether
they wish to "cooperate" or not.

I was having a few beers with a bud and he told me that while wearing
NVG's in his F-16, he slid up next to a smuggler flying a light Cessna
twin at night somewhere down in Central America.

Of course, the smugglers thought they were "incognito" simply because
they were cruising with their transponder and lights turned off...

They had nary a clue a Viper was escorting them all along.

-Mike Marron