Jump to content

whitehot78

Members
  • Content Count

    147
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by whitehot78

  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 impress
  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, an
  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
  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
  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/el
  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 indic
  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 b
  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 wh
  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 unde
  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 transpon
  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 bein
  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 carri
  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 air
  15. Ofc you know by hearth all the routes and the patrol zones, or you have links that document that information? Do we have an official SAC text documenting the usage of civilian transponders while on patrol? If I'd have to redirect B-52s and B-1s to nuclear strike Russia at a moment notice, I wouldn't have them broadcasting their ids all over, even to russian civilian airspace controllers Really, the Estonians report "Military aircraft penetrated airspace for 600 meters?", the Japanese one is pretty similar. The swedish have a history with unknown submarines in their waters, for w
  16. afaik, SAC bombers keep patrolling international skies, and for years have patrolled near the Russian borders, with their transponders off. In regards to B-2s, they wouldn't do much of the desired effect, as they are invisible to radars - B-52 would be kinda more noisy
  17. Ofc it is not ok to lie about the fate of soldiers - and if it was for me, it wouldn't be right to be at war at all. The initial post talked about Special Operations casualties abroad, which is, imho a matter that no government would publicly discuss. If on one side, I don't condone or justify the actions of Mr.Vladimir Putin, I don't put much trust in governments who limit freedom of press, in any form. America has had wars, before Irak and the Bush administration, yet no government had made laws to forbid the filming of the casualties coming back home. So the question is, was the Bush
  18. Stephen Cohen may well be having an agenda - I would find hard to believe that anybody talking this subject at the tv hasn't one - senators and congressmen being constantly lobbied by whoever does that (which is something I don't want to get into but there's plenty of), being a university professor I don't see him being really more involved in this than top level politicians. Having spoken some facts against the "hardliners" points already makes him a Putin apologist: typical, "Don't listen to what this man has to say, he is in bed with the enemy". Things like the continued air violations -
  19. lol. gentlemen: seriously? morbidity? how many people are ready to pay for that kind of ****? I'd say, a very, very small percentage of the populace.. I for sure, am not interested in such things and nobody I personally know is. Yet, we weren't talking about the dismembered bodies of soldiers fallen to auto grenade launchers, but about coffins getting back with a flag on them. Does that pertain to morbidity? because if, in your opinion it does, I think we have just witnessed what I was referring before, about a government who decides on what its people should or should not see - in fact,
  20. Shouldn't that left to the public to decide? I mean, if a reporter tries to perform a dirty stunt by exploiting images taken from dead bodies, or other kinds of similar "porn", the public itself, the news communities and whoever is concerned should raise some kind of reserve against that particular journalist, or heading that made the feat, basically censoring him/it in a democratic way, at least imho. Otherwise, it's like the government decides that people isn't "mature enough" to decide - yet I think it's a very dangerous road this one for a public opinion to accept.
  21. Yet in the preceding minutes he argues several times that the US is involved in the overthrowing of Yanukovich - at 31.50, before Obama speeches, "During an interview on the cnn on sunday, president Obama acknowledged that the United States played a role in the ousting of Ukraine elected president Viktor Yanukovich - I may have misinterpreted that part, but much of what is before sounds like that
  22. here: http://www.democracynow.org/2015/2/3/is_ukraine_a_proxy_western_russia At about minute 34 they speak about the phone call between Obama and Putin (not a meeting like I mentioned earlier - I didn't remember that right). In the minutes before that, from about 30 and on, it is described how the United States is involved in the coup which deposed the former president. What you call facts aren't the only ones - it's always been a major problem of all the matters like this, considering the facts that confirm a given point of view, negating the others. As far as I'm concerne
  23. So either I'm lying or the interview video was made by the KGB? I'll be trying to find that vid and post the link. And even if I don't justify or condone what the Russian government has done after the removal of the previous government, yet I don't think that the opinions of several millions people living in eastern Ukraine, which don't want to live under the Ukrainian flag should be ignored or censored - moreover it's the same people who has had their families killed and their property destroyed because of this war, yet they didn't form up their militias to fight the "eastern invader", b
  24. there is in fact the matter of an elected government being removed forcibly by people who did not represent all of Ukraine, which is the event that caused all those that followed. If Russia has financed a coup to remove the former president, then it's all Russia's fault. Yet I recently watched an interview with an american think-tank, a college teacher in political sciences, who reported that in a meeting during the "revolution" (a G-8 or the like, I believe) Putin asked Obama "are you behind all this thing", and Obama answered "Absolutely so"
×
×
  • Create New...