Blackjacks come v close to UK coastline

[Mustang]

Saw this thread over at militaryphotos.net http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=143084

 

our radars here in UK must be either f**ked or the operators asleep or something :(

Edited October 1, 2008 by Mustang

[nscode]

our radars here in UK must be either f**ked or the operators asleep or something :(

 

You should get a warn for insulting a forum member :D

 

;)

[Pilotasso]

I wonder, did the radar operators told the press the bombers were only spotted after they turned back? I find that a bit suspicious. After all they have got duties. It sounds like yet more lobies for the arms industry again. They have been busy at work. Every now and then opposite parties to budget cuts manifests itself in the form of rather farfetched " leaked news" to turn arround peoples mids away from such cuts and press on with the purchases.

 

While the need for modernization is there and the fact it would be foolish to let the guard down (unfortunatly were not quite in a world wide utopy yet), the ways that they find to try to turn our minds arround sounds equaly stupid.

Edited October 1, 2008 by Pilotasso

[Esac_mirmidon]

This is exactly the same kind of news like in Sweden when the Defence Budget were discussed. Lucky enough for military ranks, URSS submarines were detected and " attacked " near super secret base Kalskronna, and others, showing politicians about the risk of lowering defence money.

 

Another funny history about that is the " Whiskey on the rocks " incident, about soviet submarine stucked in 1981. ( W-137 ). The subs were there but the money were needed also, with or without subs.

[GGTharos]

Sounds like a cry for more budget money indeed. Detecting a tail on aircraft rather than head-on is ... silly. Radar detection is always best against closing targets, not receding targets.

 

Further, although intercepting those bombers before they reach that distance is fun, there's really nothing you can do to them unless they look like they will clearly violate the 12nm territorial airspace.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Detecting a tail on aircraft rather than head-on is ... silly.

Not silly at all! You forgot all that plasma stealth on the web site you quoted as a source the other night. :music_whistling:

 

So it was probably plasma stealth and plasma batteries run out so the Blackjack had to turn back. Easy explanation. :smilewink: What was that web site link?

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP ;)

 

PS

On a serious side, we don’t know what exactly happened so it is difficult to discuss this “incident”.

[GGTharos]

Haha, I'll go with the plasma stealth ;)

 

No, we don't know what exactly happened, but lack of head-on detection is still sort of silly /unless/ I suppose they made a low-altitude ingress. If they were sea-skimming I'll buy that, as long-wave radar seems to have big clutter issues (AFAIK).

 

The reason for me saying that it is silly is because head-on detection does not cause the same doppler-discrimination problems that tail on detection does. In particular, for a receding target doppler frequency decreases below that of clutter, and for whatever reason filters seem to have problems with this.

Edited October 2, 2008 by GGTharos

[Brit_Radar_Dude]

Detecting a tail on aircraft rather than head-on is ... silly. Radar detection is always best against closing targets, not receding targets.

Well not always GG. Back in the day, we ran detection trials on one of my radars. Sent the trials jet (Hawk trainer) way out over the sea until we could only just detect him, then told him to turn around. The pilot was somewhat nervous being so far out over the sea. Lost him completely until he had come a considerable distance back again, the pilot was a bit freaked by that.

 

We figured it was because we were getting returns from the engine in the tail aspect.

[GGTharos]

Could have to do with the type of radar as well, certainly :)

[nscode]

It doesn't mean that the radar didn't detect them anyway, they could be talking about the opperators.

[Zorrin]

Seriously, why would the Russians want to bomb Hull? I mean that'd do us all a favour!