The ELM Is Smoking Crack

[ColdFront]

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/21/civilian-flights-risk-putins-invisible-fighters-283709.html
The ELN is smoking crack. Radar can't determine the height of Russian aircraft?! Anti-radiation missiles are called Shrikes?!

[Oberon]

There was an anti-radiation missile called the Shrike, but I'm pretty sure it was retired a while ago.

I kind of see what they mean, without the transponder on the radar will pick it up as a UFO, which means it'll either be disregarded as anaprop or it'll have something designated to pay it a visit. A small sized fighter on the deck could probably blend in with the terrain enough to dodge all but the lowest of radar, not that this would be much of a threat to a civilian airliner at 30,000 feet.

It's definitely hyping it up though, as most media outlets do especially the smaller ones hoping to snag clicks with sensationalism. Whilst there has been a slight increase in Russian activity, it's all been in international airspace and is no different to what we do in return with drones and our ELINT aircraft, but that doesn't get published in western media. :03:

Gorbie warned of a return to the Cold War, I think he's shutting the stable door after the Cossack has bolted, the Cold War is back...on the up side, at least the Russians make for better movie villains than the Mujahedeen. More competent ones anyway. It's not as if you can have a movie about a Taliban EMP satellite, but you can with the Russians, and it'll still be able to be sold in China! :salute:

[ikalugin]

This is just the regular alarmist article (evil Russians strike again!), as air traffic at high altitude (where air liners fly) is controlled by the radars in Europe.

Also what the article does not mention is that a number of those incidents was caused by... western intelligence gathering assets (like that time with the flanker passing close by or when Norwegian "ecologists" were trying to collect Russian sonoboys in a restricted exercise area).

[Catfish]

^ Huh you don't tell me not only the russians used fishing trawlers to spy ?

You destroy my entire view of the NATO :O:


On a darker note: The cold war is indeed back, and this time it is only the West and NATO, to blame.
Maybe it is time to retroactively refuse military duty. I do not think my oath allows me to join that crap, militarily.

[Jimbuna]

There was an anti-radiation missile called the Shrike, but I'm pretty sure it was retired a while ago.



Rgr that, not used by the US since Nam and by the Brits since the Falklands IIRC....replaced by the AGM-88 HARM.

[Tchocky]

http://www.newsweek.com/2014/11/21/civilian-flights-risk-putins-invisible-fighters-283709.html
The ELN is smoking crack. Radar can't determine the height of Russian aircraft?!

You're 100% wrong, the article is correct in this.

Military radar can confirm altitude, civilian Primary Surveillance Radar cannot. For that we use the Mode C downlink from the aircraft via Secondary Surveillance Radar. A mix of the two is used to create, monitor and verify separation between aircraft.

“While you would be able to see that there was an unidentified plane in the airspace, you would have no details as to what altitude it is flying, where it is going or where it is coming from.”Again the article is correct here. Civilian ATC radar can't tell you altitude without an active transponder interrogated by SSR.

There's been a lot more Russian activity in the last few months in European airspace, I've seen a few. It's not illegal, but it is unsafe. It makes controllers workloads higher when you have to keep clear of completely unknown/unidentified traffic. Luckily the NATO air forces are quick enough to shepherd away the trespassers.


This is just the regular alarmist article (evil Russians strike again!), as air traffic at high altitude (where air liners fly) is controlled by the radars in Europe.
:/\\!!

Agh. No. Just, no.


Civil traffic (and certain pre-agreed military flights) are controlled by civilian controllers. Military traffic is controlled by military controllers. On dual-use airfields such as Eindhoven, sometimes civilian traffic is controlled by mil.

A military aircraft needs diplomatic clearance to proceed safely through the controlled airspace of another country. WHen you have open sea things get different. There's an interesting legal quirk at work here that means a diplomatic permission is only required if the aircraft flies within 12 miles of the shore or directly over the country.

What goes beyond the 12 mile limit is the Flight Information Region. So the Amsterdam FIR goes all the way to the middle of the North Sea and meets the London FIR. Responsibility for separating traffic is divided by FIR, and each state contracts their airspace out to air navigation service providers, eg FAA, NATS, EUROCONTROL.

Some european FIRs - http://www.luchtruim.zweefportaal.nl/PDF/ENR_1_6_bestanden/SSR1500FT.jpg

So that's who's in charge of keeping aircraft safe and separated.

Now when the Russians fly bombers around the North Sea, there's nothing legally preventing them from doing so. It's international airspace.
BUT, someone is also responsible for keeping the air traffic in that airspace safe and separated.

Unidentified, unpredictable, heavily-armed aircraft with dubious intentions and no legal responsibility for staying clear of other traffic gives me a headache, and calling the article "Russia-bashing" is just ridiculous.

[Catfish]

^ Tschocky, thank you for clearing this up :up:

(did not know civilian tracking only uses horizontal radar..)

[Tchocky]

^ Tschocky, thank you for clearing this up :up:

(did not know civilian tracking only uses horizontal radar..)

Pleasure :up:

There's a reason military radars are so expensive, height-finders and actual aircraft identification is tricky. ATC is moving towards more use of satellites and aircraft broadcast data, but at the moment a mix of primary (bouncing radio waves off of metal) and secondary (interrogating onboard systems for identity and altitude) radar is what we use.

I'd show pics I have of the Russians poking around the North Sea, but that would be very much not allowed :arrgh!:

[ikalugin]

Thanks for the good input.

However my point was that the civilian air traffic control has radar data, thus if there is any aircraft in the area that does not provide secondary data, then the civilian air traffic controller could use radar data available to him to shepherd the civilian aircraft to safety.

As civilian aircraft tend to fly at high altitudes (over the neutral waters) then in most cases such radar data should be available in Europe.

As to my point of the article being alarmist - as it is not about the safety as such, but Russia being evil and conducting things evil countries shouldn't be allowed to do.

[Tchocky]

Thanks for the good input.

However my point was that the civilian air traffic control has radar data, thus if there is any aircraft in the area that does not provide secondary data, then the civilian air traffic controller could use radar data available to him to shepherd the civilian aircraft to safety.

That's true but I think you're underestimating exactly how much work that involves. Quite frankly we have more than enough to do already without having to vector traffic around unidentified and unpredictable armed aircraft.

Think of driving the wrong way down 4 highways at once. And one guy has to move the cars out of the way.

[Catfish]

^ Of course you know, Russia is evil. Since communism (well it was not, but..) err .. let's say faded away, the NATO urgently needs a new reason for its existence.

So who else should they declare to be the "enemy" ?

Taliban and IS are much too "asymmetrical", and a "war" against terrorists is no war, contrary to what all those military geniusses and Fox News try to get into the heads of their listeners.

China has too much investments in the US and besides, all major corporations now produce in China. There is no environmental thinking, (the pollution stops at the chinese wall as everyone knows), and workers get a dollar an hour – if as much.

Imagine Russia being a member of the NATO, as they proposed back then. No one would have to shout when just another ally flies around, over the North Sea.

So unfortunately, Russia is the scapegoat. Again. :03: [/cyn]

[Oberon]

So in conclusion.

Russia =/= Evil

Russia = Reckless?

Russia = A Pain in the Arse for European Air Traffic Controllers.

[Catfish]

^last thing for sure. Question is if other nations behave any better. After all, the other surrounding states let their military fly around in open air space as well without announcements.

[Oberon]

^last thing for sure. Question is if other nations behave any better. After all, the other surrounding states let their military fly around in open air space as well without announcements.

I don't know, you'd have to ask Tchocky about that, but I'm fairly sure that, unless it's an emergency, NATO forces go through the usual channels when flying in European airspace, and they have their transponders on.
In regards to NATO SigInt aircraft, that I couldn't say...and I don't know if Tchocky would be allowed to say. :hmmm:

[Catfish]

Well, what i constantly try to hammer into the minds of some is, that if Russia would have joined the NATO club (a request which was turned down afaik), they would fly around wth transponders on (if at all), and no one would care.
I think the NATO means a greater threat to Russia, than vice versa.
Just look at the years from 1989 on, and how the borders with rocket systems shifted, eastwards.

You know i am as tired of the western propaganda, as of the russian one. At least the lattter does not claim all the time how brave, better, righteous, and patriotic they are, while behaving just the same (like an elephant in a porcelain store). Kosovo anyone ?

[Oberon]

There was a definite missed opportunity to bring Russia into the fold, but I think given the bad blood between the Baltic states/Eastern Europe and Russia, any attempt to bring Russia on board as a partner of NATO would have been met with massive protests and resignations from NATO most likely.
You can't just get rid of 52 years of history in less than a decade.
The expansion of NATO eastward though could have been handled in a more tactful way, less wang-waving at the Russians.

Still, here we are, no going back now, Cold War round 2. :ping:

[ikalugin]

Joining NATO would certainly help Russian Navy, as it would then be concentrated in one theatre (Pacific) rather than be split between 4 theatres.