Jump to content

whitehot78

Members
  • Content Count

    147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About whitehot78

  • Rank
    Junior Member
  • Birthday 04/24/1978

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    reading, wargaming, modeling, flight simming, watching sports on the tv..

Converted

  • Interests
    Reading, Wargaming, Modeling, falling in love with wrong women...
  1. Sympathy. I 've been labeled as a somebody trying to condone Russia's policies because I pointed out at some discrepancies in several press reports, by using some basic logical reasonment supported by some equally basic technology facts. Trying to reason - and I'm one that has got no problems in changing his views if they are proven wrong - like you earlier stated is probably useless. Stephen Cohen being called an apologist of Putin yet, in a democratic society, if he is, then so what? Listen to his arguments then decide if he is wrong or right, or something in between. Yet, my impression is that people like him must be suppressed at once, quickly make them somebodies who are traitors, who have an agenda, who are apologetic. Don't you ever dare to put them debating the subject on the medias, against someone who has opposing views. Most of those who speak clearly are massively convinced that ALL what is good and just stays only on one side; it's one of the phenomenons that has hurt the human race more than most other things, that has caused so much wars, death and destruction that one must ask himself how come, in 21st century, humans are still prone to the same vices they had thousands of years before. Also, some are quick in calling others reasons "wishful thinking", yet most of what they elaborate, when it comes to perform some mental effort (ie, not discussing news links), is that Russia failed, that Russian economy will not allow it to reach its goals, that Ukraine will come on top - not wishful at all. You mention russia's policies of the last century - yet from your position you seem to fail to recollect all the disgusting feats the US has imposed to other countries, elected presidents assassinated and replaced by military juntas in all the third world: the unlimited support to fanatic religious governments like the Saudi one, who are even more liberticide and suppressive than Syrian, Iranian or Iraqi regimes (womens can't drive or go to school, thieves getting their hands cut and so on), and finally, when "soft power" is failing, the deliberate invasion of a sovereign country; also with the revolting intellectual dishonesty of an administration trying to justify it by inventing the presence of WMDs, and the goofy attempt to ostracize whatever countries tried to oppose that in the appropriate venues (freedom fries? u kidding?) That, on the aftermath of something like 911, for which whoever is responsible owes a neverending debt to the whole human race and of which, only folks who believe right or wrong always stays on one side may believe the explanations. Today we are seeing all too well the results of the aforementioned policy - ISIS coming out right where the americans pulled out. Hey, the germans, the french, the russians did warn the international community of the danger : "The day america pulls off from Iraq, fanatics will arise and start genociding the populations of the area and pose a greater threat to humanity than Saddam Hussein". But Saddam had the biological laboratories on wheels - he had to be stopped. Also the fact that the "previous administration" based part (not that it's known how big of a part) of its foreign acts on a document, beacon of freedom and democracy worldwide, entitled something like "policies on US world dominance" (plenty of web content on "Wolfowitz Doctrine". But, being this "whataboutism", I don't expect, nor desire, to get any sympathy. (Let the whole point of the world "Whataboutism" not concern us, some folks have arguments, others have tactics) I am unsure whether the world is falling prey to a zionist conspiracy like somebody declares nowadays - it wouldn't surprise me, yet I want to think that reasonable men in places of power still can avert that kind of thing. Yet accepting all the official views and propaganda on the Ukraine (and on all the other political/international crisis) , coming only from one side, to me equates to start calling folks "french" because they just don't want to accept my points of view.
  2. I totally agree with you. Then we should ask ourselves, "what event, or events has started the rise in tension"? Is Russia really the only responsible for the rise in tension? (sorry for the double post, sburke post appeared while I was typing the previous one)
  3. It has, since what has been cleared is that the transponder does not broadcast its carrier location and therefore is not needed to pin-point it. quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aeronautics) A transponder (short-for transmitter-responder[1] and sometimes abbreviated to XPDR,[2] XPNDR,[3] TPDR[4] or TP[5]) is an electronic device that produces a response when it receives a radio-frequency interrogation. Aircraft have transponders to assist in identifying them on air traffic control radar. Is the word "identifying" synonymous to "locating" to you? anyway, another link http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Transponder I did not state there is not a safety benefit in carrying transponders - in fact airliners are required to carry and use them. What you are failing to understand for some reason, is that military airplanes are not required by any international law to employ them. If it that was the case, Iran, Syria, Lebanon and other countries would be filing complaints to the United Nations because American or Israeli airplanes or drones flew inside their airspaces with transponders off. Or, you believe that American recon planes should be broadcasting out to Iranian ATC when they overfly Iran? Maybe they could even radio in the ATC : "This is Raven-1, we are about to transition your airspace and need a squawk code - requesting the one for covert aerial recon, if it's not already taken". I also already stated that russian military planes don't carry transponders, not the kind which is described in the press - they carry an IFF transponder which is, obviously, not compatible with western civilians ones. Did russian aircraft begin to fly in international airspace in 2014? no, they always have, and they have been intercepted as back as 2007, when long range patrols have been re-instated. But, general press reports the information only during the UKR crisis. You can safely assume that russian military planes appear, to russian ATC controllers, the exact same ways as they appear to western ones on their screens. The whole point is that medias are collaborating in feeding public opinions alarmistic and terror spreading news which, one may surmise, are made to justify more hard-line actions by western governments. Since it's strictly imho, I don't expect nor desire you to adopt my point of view in this issue - yet you are not willing to accept for a moment that the way a certain technology is described is false. One may also add that, if per absurdum, the russian aircraft would have transponders on on their planes, the atc controllers would get a digit on their radar blips, identifying that blip as a russian air force plane. You can safely assume that the russian ATC civilian controllers see russian af planes same way as the western ones, on their radar screens. He hasn't said what you state explicitly at all, if you have read your own quote. He said that danish ships would "become targets". Do I have to find links that show how american, british and french nuclear missiles are trained on russian objectives; and russian ones on western ones. Do you accept that nuclear capable missiles have their targets pre-programmed into them? The statement means that, danish ships employed inside the US-led anti-ballistic device, will be targeted by penetration capable, nuclear missiles (presumably, Iskander-M SRBM). Which does not mean "we will strike the danish ships without notice, when we see it fit", just that some missiles will be programmed to hit them if the need to dismantle the anti-ballistic device arises - ie, in case of a nuclear war. Frankly, again what I'm seeing is that people ignoring the technologies and the doctrines being discussed, are easily mis-informed by the same alarmistic press I was talking before, and that goes both for the issue of the transponders and the "threats to Denmark" one. Since in this case Portugal is the intercepting party, I see no connection with the issue discussed in previous posts, where Portugal was the intercepted party. The article you posted talks about the Atlantic ocean. How does that pertain to Portuguese planes being intercepted by russian fighters over Baltic?
  4. no sir, I posted the link to prove that american airplanes get intercepted too in the same airspace. As you may have noticed, I put a lol smiley near the sentence stating that the transponder on the US plane was off, it was in fact to underline that the matter (transponders) is rather silly and irrelevant but - some people here have to keep that issue of vital importance, because it gives "mass" to their arguments against Russia. @Panzer - You talk about literacy, yet seem to keep citing the "Nuclear threats against Denmark", and I wonder if you need to read the statement from the russian MoD in regard again: The article which has been posted in this same thread about the issue, reports that IF Denmark will participate into the ballistic missile shield, then, in the case of nuclear war, Russia will target the assets that Denmark has deployed to that international device. Now since the "nuclear threats to Denmark" seem to be the forte argument to people who are suggesting that the west need to put Russia down, I don't expect you to drop it with any ease - yet I suggest folks to read the declaration I cited and decide by themselves if it is a nuclear threat. Denmark (and it is stated yet in the same article) has responded that it is not by any chance worried about that. "Portugal around the corner from Russia?" - Does in your opinion Russia send fighters to intercept portuguese planes flying over the atlantic, or is it more likely that Portuguese planes get intercepted over the baltic because they are deployed at NATO bases which are in-theater? Ofc, I don't expect Russia to be particularly honest about these kind of things, yet I still remember Colin Powell trying to explain to the UN how the Hussein regime was manufacturing chemical and biological weapons on mobile laboratories (Just to cite one example) . So I don't expect the other party to be any more honest than Russia. Yet, since I don't have an agenda in enforcing one country or the other policies, nor I have the need to come out at particular countries which I just can't stand, I try just to point out some facts which seem discrepancies to me. My home village is actually a big western city, abt 1million inhabitants, so I don't consider myself a redneck in any case.
  5. P-3 Orions may be employed in several different missions - both ASW and maritime surveillance. ESM equipment carried by them effectively makes them SIGINT capable. Also there have been cases of USAF RC-135U being intercepted: http://theaviationist.com/2015/04/13/su-27-aggressively-intercept-rc135/ As you can read in the article, the american spyplane was flying with its transponder off. As for nuclear payloads, the Tupolev-95 is nuclear capable, but also in some version it carries the same kind of equipment the P-3 Orion carries, and in those versions is employed pretty much the same way as the Orion, ASW and maritime surveillance. Ofc the press reports are kinda sketchy about which kind of "Bears" were intercepted, although one may surmise that in the various cases, different kind of planes may have been interested (I didn't read anything about which unit they were from, but again, I wouldn't entrust the general press to single out the difference between, say, a Bear-H and a Bear-F). Moreover, I would find it very unlikely that the airplanes spotted in the baltic sea were actually carrying any nuclear payload, but being this imho, I understand it's difficult to accept. The baltic sea isn't thousands of mile away from russian airspace - in fact Kaliningrad is a port city on that sea, without citing St. Petersburg. Yeah, metaphors always are tempting, yet this one is pretty much apples and pears.
  6. You are correct. Russia has reinstated patrols by the long range aviation in 2007. General press is reporting intercepts just since the Ukraine crisis, while specialized press has always reported them since 2007 - at least in cases where the military shared the informations. This also answers the question of a previous poster, who asked if this kind of situations started to happened only during the UKR crisis or were already in effect, and in this last case, if media were reporting the intercepts by the NATO (or non-aligned) fighters. Also, there has been intercepts of american sigint/elint planes, in these years, by both russian and chinese air forces: one of them ending with a chinese fighter slamming into an american recon plane (hainan island incident). Norwegian P-3 patrol airplanes have often been intercepted flying inside, or just outside russian airspace - one case in 2012. Also P-3s from other nations have been intercepted by Flankers, the one coming to my mind right now being a portuguese one over the baltic. You are stating this is a strategy to disinform people, in fact I have no desire to condone Putin's actions. What baffles and seems unfair to me is that the public gets fed alarmistic news by a general press which is normally, in the best case, ignorant. I'm pretty sure that many folks on this forums, which are informed and versed on a particular subject, have had to read some article or hear some report from the general press on that subject that was full of inaccuracies, or even lies. For what concerns the matter of the interceptions over the baltic and elsewhere, seems to me that we have cleared that the ATC controllers were perfectly able to pinpoint the location of the russian af planes on their screens, and therefore, to steer them away from them, or to alert their crews of their presence; while it seemed to me that there was a general tendency to believe that the russians were aggressively, and somehow "stealthily" maneuver to endanger the safety of civilian airliners.
  7. so, if the vid is accurate I think that earlier posts created a little confusion on the definition of primary and secondary radars. The system described in the video you posted, is the complete system, Primary and secondary. The primary system is a 3d radar which gets the target parameters, all of them. The secondary one, is THE system which listens to transponder codes, and actually would defy the definition of radar - it's not a transmitter/receiver that indipendently locates objects, but just an antenna interrogating the transponders on the aircraft. This would be more of an indication that you can't have airspace scanned ONLY by secondary radar. The result on operators screens doesn't change - They get the blips with the contacts both collaborative and uncollaborative (xpdr on or off). Anyway, the wiki link about transponders : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transponder_(aeronautics) please note, that in no case said system does broadcast the aircrafts coordinates in space, hence negating the need to use what we have called a "primary radar" so far. It can broadcast the target altitude, but again, having the need of a primary radar following the flight, that parameter is already extrapolated by the radar returns, which makes the altitude broadcast from the transponder redundant.
  8. Russia is a member of ICAO but those rules are applied only to civilians airplanes. Military aircraft are not by any mean obliged to follow ICAO regulations, they may choose to cooperate with civilians controllers or they may not with no violation of international law. "Above international waters.." are you kidding? and where it would be international airspace located, over national lands? Do you (or your pilot acquaintance) understand that the airspace over the land of a given country is considered national and as such, if russian military airplanes entered say, the polish one, it would be an act of war? Is it clear that the news reported events about the russian warplanes talked about international airspace therefore, above international waters, or there is people out there believing that russian air force planes conduct patrolling and training inside national airspaces of foreign countries ? Same goes for the secondary radar matter - either the pilot you know lied to you, or was misinformed - VFR pilots may even not be required to be informed about IFR flight rules, which apply to the whole "transponder fuss" thing, and I still haven't found a single document which states that secondary radar is unable to locate an aircraft without transponder (which is rather obvious, if you want to keep things logic: a radar is made to indipendently locate objects, otherwise, it's not even called a radar). And - the area in question, basically the baltic sea, is anyway covered by primary surveillance radars, which makes the usage of secondary ones useless (I believe that these days they are anyway kept off the air, or on standby mode)
  9. It is in fact my point - either somebody trying to sell a few more copies by the usual terror tactics, or something even more disturbing International airspace doesn't need to be "probed" by definition - probes were what both US and Soviet aircraft made during the cold war in places like the Bering strait, or the borders between NATO and WarPac countries. If the Russians have stepped up patrols in international airspace, they aren't violating any international law - NATO countries actually patrols international airspace. Unless NATO has obtained some kind of United Nations mandate, by which the international air space is a big no-fly zone for Russian military aircraft, then something is amiss. It takes no genius to see a pattern by which, as the relations between Russia and the West worsened, this kind of reports on news became very frequent. Since I have a profound disrespect for press which actively operates to increase the amount of fear and anxiety in public opinions, out of their own personal greed to increase their sellings, or out of something else more subtle which would be like playing the same tune all-over to the advantage of some interested political entity, I believe that something should be clarified, to people absolutely ignoring historical facts, naming and operating procedures, and technology. btw, as Augusto reported, notice how the german wikipedia page says that secondary surveillance radars NEED to have transponder replies to be able to pin-point the location of observed targets, which is something that for people knowing the involved technologies, is a completely wrong information. And, I'm not worried abt a conspiracy against Russia, but abt one against western public opinions which have to get distorted facts and embellished news by intellectually corrupt press (I'm not saying all the press is like this), and be terrorized into thinking that Russia is preying on their childrens.
  10. So, you are asserting that: -Snowden is a traitor -The information he gave up (not only to foreign countries but to international press) is valid. If the information is valid, which is admittedly true, it actually puts up serious difficulties in affirming that the United States (and probably most other western countries) are in a state of law and not in a police state - or at least, something in-between, which is not a state of law anyway. The fact that Snowden is perceived as a traitor does nothing to negate the above. As an american citizen, should I be more worried to live under a state which is not ruled by law, or that the person who uncovered that fact is prosecuted? Because if, in your opinion, the second option is more important, then it is really time to be worried.
  11. You are not seeing this right. You fail to understand what the links you posted mean, especially the "secondary radar" one. Wikipedia states that : Secondary surveillance radar (SSR)[1] is a radar system used in air traffic control (ATC), that not only detects and measures the position of aircraft i.e. range and bearing, but also requests additional information from the aircraft itself such as its identity and altitude. Unlike primary radar systems that measure only the range and bearing of targets by detecting reflected radio signals, SSR relies on targets equipped with a radar transponder, that replies to each interrogation signal by transmitting a response containing encoded data. SSR is based on the military identification friend or foe (IFF) technology originally developed during World War II, therefore the two systems are still compatible. Monopulse secondary surveillance radar (MSSR), Mode S, TCAS andADS-B are similar modern methods of secondary surveillance. So as you may have noticed, even secondary radar (which, by definition, is used as a backup of a primary one) is able to locate a target by range and bearing - that gives the operator a point on his screen, clearly showing the position of the aircraft. This, without any usage of the transponder. The article describes how the system relies on transponder interrogation to extrapolate the target's identification (the 4 digit code I talked about previously), and altitude. Keeping in mind that no civilian airspace is covered ONLY by SSR, at least in the developed world, even in the case of malfunction of ALL the primary radars in a given zone (many of them also overlap, which means that if one is down, another one can get the information), the SSR is able to have precise coordinates of a given flight. Also, in the case of a russian military aircraft, the SSR would have the precise coordinates of said airplane, only lacking altitude data and identification. But yet again, SSR only would be a theoretical scenario - The real scenario, that is primary radars covering airspaces, would also get the altitude data on the russian aircraft, only lacking the identification digit - which is in all purposes - useless information. Russian military airplanes, like Americans, British, German or Chinese, have ALWAYS been flying in international airspace without any transponder usage, the difference between the past and now is that this behaviour is reported by the press, and it's reported in such a way to make it appear as an aggressive act which makes civilian flights unsafe. The logic by which these news are reported is flawed - If I fly without transponder and that makes me "stealth", how are controllers able to report to the press that there was a russian airplane in that zone at all? The ignorance on the public on the procedures and the technologies involved, and the mala-fide of somebody in the reporting cycle, reporting alarmistic news to said public is what causes this kind of outcry. Transponders are depicted like some kind of vital piece of equipment to keep airspaces safe - the truth is that they are important for civil aviation operators, who can perform their jobs more productively, but they are not mandatory on military traffic, which by its nature, is not interested in broadcasting informations about itself, depending on what kind of mission they are performing. To have the informations you are requesting (transponders on russian military aircraft) you in fact have to find pages which describe what kind of radio equipment these planes are carrying. The aircraft involved in the news reports have been SU-27 Flankers, SU-24 Fencers, TU-95 Bears, IL-78 Midas tankers, in some cases IL-20 Coot surveillance AC. If you are interested I can provide a flight manual for the SU-27 Flanker and , I believe, some other older models, yet they are in Russian and they are in pdf format. If that is not an option, if you don't put doubts in my honesty, you can take my word for it, as I have been around this kind of information for more than twenty years, and I'm not interested in advocating one particular country, or political parties or agendas.
  12. exactly Your opinion is shared by many americans, which is very worrying. The doubt is taken away from the people - the government said he 's a traitor, then whatever he says isn't valid. Are we kidding? What kind of moral stunt do we have to perform to keep using words like "freedom" and "democracy", when a citizen, which loves his country, and wants his country to adhere to the principles of its constitution, chooses to become persecuted by that nation, to live in exile and to even risk his life? It's for the love of freedom and democracy, for the love of the truth being clearly given to the american people that this man has ruined his life, denouncing a government which illegaly appropriates all the information it wants from every citizen using electronic devices - and doing it secretly. It's just appalling that many people see Snowden as an attention whore and a traitor and don't even think for a second that he may just have tried to save his people liberties from what may be the biggest oppression machine human beings have ever created. People is starting to behave like that it is not worth the effort, to understand what have caused matters like Snowden's one: we are so disturbed and afraid of having to ponder that most of what we are being fed on daily basis it's lies and fabrications, that we are better off with the official explanations, so we can continue to believe what suits us most, that we are the good guys, that other countries are the bad ones, that we are always in the right because we the west have democracy - this gives us moral and ethical superiority over whatever country or population is not western, and it makes us accept whatever is needed to inflict our democratic will to others. Only having the doubt, that we the west have been lied many times about our moral and ethical superiority, that most of us don't actually even understand what democracy, freedom of speech, of press, transparency of the government ways mean - only having that doubt opens up scenarios so unsettling that we better get back posting **** on facebook and twitters, watching sports on the tv and get stuffed with gallons of beer on the couch. This makes us feel safe and keep clear of any feeling of guilt while we watch another "rogue country" getting bombed to bits by western air power.
  13. I don't know where you did read that, but what you imply is that radars work only if the object they observe has a device on them that broadcasts data back to the receiver. A radar contact stays exactly the same, with or without transponder collaboration from the observed object, and ATC radars aren't really different from military ones (except for very expensive 3D complexes carried by navy ships or in some ground installation) - often they are more modern and complex systems. The transponder, depending on the model, is capable of sending back only the altitude of the plane that carries it, after reading the data from its barometric altitude. Yet an ATC won't depend on this feature to get altitude data out of a contact, since the large numbers of planes that don't carry a transponder - or don't use it. Another usage of the transponder is as a sort of emergency radio - For example, if I'm a pilot whose airliner is being hijacked, and I can't talk to the control tower by voice over the radio because the terrorists would hear me, I would change my transponder code to one out of a number of standard codes used to communicate emergency situations - in this case 7500 (if the situation doesn't endanger the airplane and the passengers). Other codes are employed if a pilot would want to communicate he experienced total radio failure or yet other situations. In any case, as I mentioned, a radar contact is not by any means lost if the transponder is turned off or missing, and there is no ICAO or FAA regulation which require at all to employ transponders on aircraft. Most civilians planes have them and use them - but with military, on training or patrol or some other mission the norm is that they are not used.
  14. Military aircraft from all the world are not obliged by international aviation laws to enable their transponders. The problem with the medias outcry, is that they exploit the public ignorance on the subject. A transponder is a radio device that simply broadcasts a numeric, usually 4 digit code. Airplanes flying in VFR conditions normally use the 1200 code, at least in the continental US. Aircraft in IFR conditions (like airliners) get a code assigned by ATC when their control is passed to a specific ATC - before take off, and often when entering an area covered by a different ATC. Military airplanes "at home" (like ANG planes flying over the United States) may, or may not employ a digit which is reserved to the military. The system works like this: civilians air controllers, monitoring flights on their radars, can watch the blips on their screens with a datablock displayed near every return: this usually renders the altitude, the bearing and speed of the observed airplane. At last, IF the observed flight has its transponder on, that 4 number digit is displayed, along with the aforementioned data. So basically it is a measure which makes ATC work a little easier - air controllers can find a specific flight on the screen just by scanning it quickly, as the transponder code univocally identifies a single airplane with a number the controller knows. As air control radars are normally pretty cluttered with flights, especially in areas with mayor cities and airports, it somehow reduces the controller's workload. But, having the transponder on or off doesn't change at all if an aircraft is visible or not - if an AC is observed without the transponder code, it is classified as "uncollaborative return" - yet the flight parameters of the aircraft are still displayed just like all the other contacts, so it's just the matter of that single air controller knowing at a glance which plane he is observing. For a military aircraft, using the transponder while on training or other operations, is kinda a rare thing. Russian military aircraft don't even have a transponder which is compatible with western ATC radars, they carry a military IFF transponder not unlike those carried by western military, which broadcasts an encrypted signal to military radar controllers and identify the aircraft as friendly or unknown (any plane not carrying that equipment would be classified as unknown). As already said, flying in international airspace with no transponder broadcast has never been considered an aggressive action, and it would be treated like pretty much routine for ATCs located in Poland or Denmark, for example. "Civilians corridors" are not reserved to airliners by no aviation international law - they get criss-crossed every day hundreds of times by military aircraft all over the world - not only russian. Having an interest in aviation, and a knowledge about said technologies and procedures, actually makes me think that medias are actually playing the usual game of terrorizing the ignorant public. There have been instances of russian military aircraft dangerously flying close to civilians, yet again, getting at like 500 meters from an airliners would be a feat happening tens of times on a daily base, all over the world - with nobody actually even bothering to report what happened, both the civilian and the military crews as well as the radar controller.
×
×
  • Create New...