[AU] Light plane sparked terror alert

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

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

"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 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

"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..

"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/asr...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

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?