Scared of mid-airs

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar.


No kidding? They also often have their own radar and have been trained
to look at it and interpret it with greater detail than following an
up/down arrow on a TCAS. They've also been trained to provide their
own separation and to operate in areas without the
all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic Control.

Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out, "stuff"
happens--but it ain't murder.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

With a few possible exceptions, fighter aircraft radar is
two types, a search and a fire control radar. Both have a
fairly small cone in which to detect a target. They depend
on being vectored in the general direction of a threat in
order to detect a target. Also, military aircraft have
radar detectors that warn the pilot/crew that they are being
painted by somebody's radar.

But it isn't really a system designed for anti-collision
use, but to keep from being shot down or to find a target to
shoot. The F14 even has a telescope to allow visual
confirmation of targets that are 100 miles away after the
radar has found the target, rules of engagement require
visual confirmation.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
|
| True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground
radar.
|
|
| No kidding? They also often have their own radar and have
been trained
| to look at it and interpret it with greater detail than
following an
| up/down arrow on a TCAS. They've also been trained to
provide their
| own separation and to operate in areas without the
| all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic
Control.
|
| Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out,
"stuff"
| happens--but it ain't murder.
|
| Ed Rasimus
| Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
| "When Thunder Rolled"
| www.thunderchief.org
| www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 13:11:22 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

With a few possible exceptions, fighter aircraft radar is
two types, a search and a fire control radar.

Actually that's only one weapon system radar. The radar searches, if
necessary a target is designated and data is fed to weapons, and if
necessary the radar is focussed on a sub-set of the entire scan
envelope to track the target. Some systems allow for multiple track,
some for continuous scanning while simultaneously tracking, some
hand-off to autonomous weapons which don't need updates from the
launch platform.

Both have a
fairly small cone in which to detect a target.

Well, if you call 45-60 degrees left and right of center and multiple
bar width scan a small cone, I guess you're right. But if we are
discussing clearing your own flight path, the scan is very adequate.

They depend
on being vectored in the general direction of a threat in
order to detect a target.

Quite simply NO! While GCI vectoring is fine (or AWACS), older systems
worked quite nicely with dedicated search sectors for flight members
(fighters don't fly alone,) and new systems have data fusion systems
that integrate data from multiple sources in the aircraft display.

Also, military aircraft have
radar detectors that warn the pilot/crew that they are being
painted by somebody's radar.

RHAW or RWR is not relevant to the discussion of flight path clearance
here. It also is dependent upon antennae and programming to detect the
appropriate frequency and pulse rates of threat radars for
presentation.

But it isn't really a system designed for anti-collision
use, but to keep from being shot down or to find a target to
shoot.

Or for navigation or for mutual support or for flight path clearance
or for weather avoidance, etc. etc.

The F14 even has a telescope to allow visual
confirmation of targets that are 100 miles away after the
radar has found the target, rules of engagement require
visual confirmation.

Some F-4E aircraft had TISEO and some F-15s had a system called Eagle
Eye (might have had other nomenclature or been updated later) but
these weren't reaching out to 100 miles.

Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

A telescope, ROTFLMAO. "Shiver me timbers mate's, pieces of eight on dead
men's chest" and all that other pirate talk, The telescope must have been
introduced by the "Jolly Rogers". The mental image of a GIB from
VF-84/VF-103 standing up in the back seat scanning the sky with a spyglass
and shouting to the pilot, "Thar be the target!" was just too much for me to
bear.

It's an "AN/AXX-1 Television Camera Set (TCS)". Even with enhancements and
under the best of conditions you can probably ID a DC-10 at 80 miles, F-111
at 40 miles, C-130 at 35 miles and F-5 at 10 miles. However there are newer
designs that may be able to do better, especially with all the computing
power available today in smaller packages.


"Jim Macklin" wrote in message
news:FF6zg.84651$ZW3.43673@dukeread04...
With a few possible exceptions, fighter aircraft radar is
two types, a search and a fire control radar. Both have a
fairly small cone in which to detect a target. They depend
on being vectored in the general direction of a threat in
order to detect a target. Also, military aircraft have
radar detectors that warn the pilot/crew that they are being
painted by somebody's radar.

But it isn't really a system designed for anti-collision
use, but to keep from being shot down or to find a target to
shoot. The F14 even has a telescope to allow visual
confirmation of targets that are 100 miles away after the
radar has found the target, rules of engagement require
visual confirmation.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
| On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| wrote:
|
| True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground
radar.
|
|
| No kidding? They also often have their own radar and have
been trained
| to look at it and interpret it with greater detail than
following an
| up/down arrow on a TCAS. They've also been trained to
provide their
| own separation and to operate in areas without the
| all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic
Control.
|
| Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out,
"stuff"
| happens--but it ain't murder.
|
| Ed Rasimus
| Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
| "When Thunder Rolled"
| www.thunderchief.org
| www.thundertales.blogspot.com

With a telephoto lens, all telescopes have electronic
displays, but many pilots carry [ied] binoculars.


"Red Rider" wrote in message
m...
|A telescope, ROTFLMAO. "Shiver me timbers mate's, pieces of
eight on dead
| men's chest" and all that other pirate talk, The telescope
must have been
| introduced by the "Jolly Rogers". The mental image of a
GIB from
| VF-84/VF-103 standing up in the back seat scanning the sky
with a spyglass
| and shouting to the pilot, "Thar be the target!" was just
too much for me to
| bear.
|
| It's an "AN/AXX-1 Television Camera Set (TCS)". Even with
enhancements and
| under the best of conditions you can probably ID a DC-10
at 80 miles, F-111
| at 40 miles, C-130 at 35 miles and F-5 at 10 miles.
However there are newer
| designs that may be able to do better, especially with all
the computing
| power available today in smaller packages.
|
|
| "Jim Macklin" wrote
in message
| news:FF6zg.84651$ZW3.43673@dukeread04...
| With a few possible exceptions, fighter aircraft radar
is
| two types, a search and a fire control radar. Both have
a
| fairly small cone in which to detect a target. They
depend
| on being vectored in the general direction of a threat
in
| order to detect a target. Also, military aircraft have
| radar detectors that warn the pilot/crew that they are
being
| painted by somebody's radar.
|
| But it isn't really a system designed for anti-collision
| use, but to keep from being shot down or to find a
target to
| shoot. The F14 even has a telescope to allow visual
| confirmation of targets that are 100 miles away after
the
| radar has found the target, rules of engagement require
| visual confirmation.
|
|
| --
| James H. Macklin
| ATP,CFI,A&P
|
| "Ed Rasimus" wrote in
message
| ...
| | On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
| | wrote:
| |
| | True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground
| radar.
| |
| |
| | No kidding? They also often have their own radar and
have
| been trained
| | to look at it and interpret it with greater detail
than
| following an
| | up/down arrow on a TCAS. They've also been trained to
| provide their
| | own separation and to operate in areas without the
| | all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic
| Control.
| |
| | Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out,
| "stuff"
| | happens--but it ain't murder.
| |
| | Ed Rasimus
| | Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
| | "When Thunder Rolled"
| | www.thunderchief.org
| | www.thundertales.blogspot.com
|
|
|
|

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:03:19 GMT, "Red Rider"
wrote:

It's an "AN/AXX-1 Television Camera Set (TCS)". Even with enhancements and
under the best of conditions you can probably ID a DC-10 at 80 miles, F-111
at 40 miles, C-130 at 35 miles and F-5 at 10 miles. However there are newer
designs that may be able to do better, especially with all the computing
power available today in smaller packages.

The F-5 at ten miles with the TCS gave me a flashback moment (and at
my age they are always appreciated.)

Mission was out of Holloman with me leading a T-38 four-ship to the
Red Rio tactical range. Escorted by a pair of F-15As out of the 49th
TFW. Target area defended by a pair of Nellis Aggressor F-5s. Run in
at low altitude at 450 knots (Attn Mr. Dighera--this is what we do.
It's a training situation in controlled restricted airspace. Light
planes HAVE blundered into it despite restrictions.)

Eagles flying out-rigger and slightly aft of my flight. I called
visual on "MiGs, left 11 slightly high at four miles". Eagles with
their cosmic radar and A/A specialization hadn't seen them.

GCI over-seeing the mission confirmed during debrief play-back that
the actual contact distance was 11 miles. Mark 1/Mod O eyeball!!!

Them was the good ol' days.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

"Ed Rasimus" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 01:03:19 GMT, "Red Rider"
wrote:

It's an "AN/AXX-1 Television Camera Set (TCS)". Even with enhancements and
under the best of conditions you can probably ID a DC-10 at 80 miles,
F-111
at 40 miles, C-130 at 35 miles and F-5 at 10 miles. However there are
newer
designs that may be able to do better, especially with all the computing
power available today in smaller packages.

The F-5 at ten miles with the TCS gave me a flashback moment (and at
my age they are always appreciated.)

Mission was out of Holloman with me leading a T-38 four-ship to the
Red Rio tactical range. Escorted by a pair of F-15As out of the 49th
TFW. Target area defended by a pair of Nellis Aggressor F-5s. Run in
at low altitude at 450 knots (Attn Mr. Dighera--this is what we do.
It's a training situation in controlled restricted airspace. Light
planes HAVE blundered into it despite restrictions.)

Eagles flying out-rigger and slightly aft of my flight. I called
visual on "MiGs, left 11 slightly high at four miles". Eagles with
their cosmic radar and A/A specialization hadn't seen them.

GCI over-seeing the mission confirmed during debrief play-back that
the actual contact distance was 11 miles. Mark 1/Mod O eyeball!!!

Them was the good ol' days.

F-5s are a bugger to spot, too.

Doing a defence of the Lazy D hill feature at Gagetown (723' ASL in CYR 724)
we had both F-5s and Hornets flying against us. I surprised myself when I
picked up a Hornet of 425 "Alouette" Squadron well out there, about 20 Km
and less than 100 feet off the deck. Its low-visibility grey stood out
against a bright blue sky. Engaging it was cinch as we could track it all
the way in. Minutes later a little dirty green and dark grey F-5 of 434
"Bluenose" Squadron dragged himself out of the Saint John River valley where
he had been about 50 feet above the river and attacked us ground troops --
from below! His crossing rate was so high we could scarcely draw a bead on
him until he was almost at the line of weapon release.
--
Andrew Chaplin
SIT MIHI GLADIUS SICUT SANCTO MARTINO
(If you're going to e-mail me, you'll have to get "yourfinger." out.)

On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 11:08:39 -0400, "Andrew Chaplin"
wrote:


F-5s are a bugger to spot, too.

Doing a defence of the Lazy D hill feature at Gagetown (723' ASL in CYR 724)
we had both F-5s and Hornets flying against us. I surprised myself when I
picked up a Hornet of 425 "Alouette" Squadron well out there, about 20 Km
and less than 100 feet off the deck. Its low-visibility grey stood out
against a bright blue sky. Engaging it was cinch as we could track it all
the way in. Minutes later a little dirty green and dark grey F-5 of 434
"Bluenose" Squadron dragged himself out of the Saint John River valley where
he had been about 50 feet above the river and attacked us ground troops --
from below! His crossing rate was so high we could scarcely draw a bead on
him until he was almost at the line of weapon release.

When I first arrived at Holloman to IP for IPs at Fighter Lead-In, we
still had a lot of the former Aggressor AT-38s in their various paint
schemes. It was about a year later that they standardized the
blue-blue-gray glossy "Smurf" paint.

I recall being on a 1-v-1 against a brown/tan "Lizard". He closed on
me in a 90 degree beam set-up and I watched him track in from about
three miles until at about 2500 feet he simply disappeared! I had been
pad-locked on him as he closed waiting for him to commit and while
totally focussed on him, he turned on the cloaking device. Most
amazing demonstration of camoflage I had ever seen.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:01:33 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar.


No kidding? They also often have their own radar and have been trained
to look at it and interpret it with greater detail than following an
up/down arrow on a TCAS.

Unfortunately, military pilots often have their on-board radar set to
reject slow moving targets like light GA aircraft, so it isn't being
used for collision avoidance with civil aircraft. That should change.

They've also been trained to provide their
own separation and to operate in areas without the
all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic Control.

Some have;some haven't:

Civil aircraft to the right of military aircraft:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X00109&key=1

F-16s lacked required ATC clearance:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1

A6 pilot expected to exit MTR eight minutes after route closu
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X12242&key=1

A6 hit glider that had right of way:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1

Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out, "stuff"
happens--

If I infer your intent correctly, the 'stuff' to which you
euphemistically refer are the deaths of civil pilots due to being
impaled in midair collisions by high-speed, low-level military
aircraft often on MTR runs.

but it ain't murder.

Some are, and some aren't.

But the military's miserable record in reprimanding its airmen who
wrongfully kill innocent pilots, and shortsighted safety initiatives
are pathetic. You've got to agree, that rocketing through congested
terminal airspace at 500 knots without the required ATC clearance,
lopping 9' of wingtip from a glider with an A6, and failing to see and
avoid a crop duster are manslaughter, which is called Third Degree
Murder in Florida.

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 19:14:53 GMT, Larry Dighera
wrote:

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 17:01:33 GMT, Ed Rasimus
wrote in
::

On Sun, 30 Jul 2006 11:35:46 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote:

True, but often they have an AWACS or military ground radar.


No kidding? They also often have their own radar and have been trained
to look at it and interpret it with greater detail than following an
up/down arrow on a TCAS.

Unfortunately, military pilots often have their on-board radar set to
reject slow moving targets like light GA aircraft, so it isn't being
used for collision avoidance with civil aircraft. That should change.

And what military aircraft radars are using MTI with thresholds above
GA aircraft speeds? Stick with what you know, Larry. Avoid discussions
of specific military equipment, training, tactics, procedures, are
even attitudes.

They've also been trained to provide their
own separation and to operate in areas without the
all-seeing/all-knowing motherliness of Air Traffic Control.

Some have;some haven't:

How much training experience in the military aviation business do you
have? Stick with what you know--apparently Google searches are your
forte:

Civil aircraft to the right of military aircraft:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...26X00109&key=1

F-16s lacked required ATC clearance:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...12X22313&key=1

A6 pilot expected to exit MTR eight minutes after route closu
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...11X12242&key=1

A6 hit glider that had right of way:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...13X33340&key=1

Nevertheless as Mr. Dighera incessantly points out, "stuff"
happens--

If I infer your intent correctly, the 'stuff' to which you
euphemistically refer are the deaths of civil pilots due to being
impaled in midair collisions by high-speed, low-level military
aircraft often on MTR runs.

Or, conversely the numbers of deaths of military pilots due to
mid-airs with GA pilots operating cluelessly in restricted, warning,
prohibited airspace, MOAs and oil burner routes. It's a two-edged
sword, Larry.

but it ain't murder.

Some are, and some aren't.

Mid-airs aren't murder. Accidents happen. Most accident boards find
causative factors. But it isn't murder.

But the military's miserable record in reprimanding its airmen who
wrongfully kill innocent pilots, and shortsighted safety initiatives
are pathetic.

You are the pathetic one with innuendo, hyperbole, exaggeration and
disgusting rhetoric. No one goes out to have a mid-air.

You've got to agree, that rocketing through congested
terminal airspace at 500 knots without the required ATC clearance,
lopping 9' of wingtip from a glider with an A6, and failing to see and
avoid a crop duster are manslaughter, which is called Third Degree
Murder in Florida.

Until you can show me some experience in flying a military tactical
aircraft in a leadership position of a flight of four in congested
airspace with weather factors involved, I'll simply discount your
commentary as someone with a fixation.



Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
www.thunderchief.org
www.thundertales.blogspot.com