Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
heirflick

Russian bear v pc-9

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

The lesser-seen Moseski variant...

 

If only it had been the Tu 126, NATO Codename "Moss", it would have only needed one extra letter....

 

tu126_04.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"The worry is when these Russian bombers come, there's no signal - they don't have their transponder, they are not 'squawking' - so in other words, only military radar pick them up."

Isn't a radar a radar, you just have no seconadary ident on the signal....maybe they'll turn on their transponders at some point :ROFL:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Isn't a radar a radar

 

As a matter of interest There's 2 types of radar - primary and secondary.

 

Primary (referred to as military radar in that article) is generally only used in civil aviation in the direct vicinity of airports, with a range of about 30miles. A signal is sent out, hits a target and gets reflected back to the receiver. Power intensive as the signal has to be strong enough to go out and back. Also less reliable as rain, mountains etc can reflect signals.

 

Secondary radar is the modern format. A one way signal is sent out and 'interrogates' a transponder on board the aircraft. The transponder then responds to the receiver with its position. If the transponder is off then no signal is returned and therefore the aircraft goes undetected.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As a matter of interest There's 2 types of radar - primary and secondary.

 

Primary (referred to as military radar in that article) is generally only used in civil aviation in the direct vicinity of airports, with a range of about 30miles. A signal is sent out, hits a target and gets reflected back to the receiver. Power intensive as the signal has to be strong enough to go out and back. Also less reliable as rain, mountains etc can reflect signals.

 

Secondary radar is the modern format. A one way signal is sent out and 'interrogates' a transponder on board the aircraft. The transponder then responds to the receiver with its position. If the transponder is off then no signal is returned and therefore the aircraft goes undetected.

Even civilian ATC centers have primary surveillance radars for target bearing and range/altitude. This should be visible even if a non-secondary surveillance radar equiped/responding aircraft fails to provide its squawk ident /pressure altitude info. I just thought it was funny the way that the press reported that the Russian aircraft was not squawking for all to see.

Edited by DiveController

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't really need radar for a Tu-95 - just open the window and turn the radio down....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Even civilian ATC centers have primary surveillance radars for target bearing and range/altitude. This should be visible even if a non-secondary surveillance radar equiped/responding aircraft fails to provide its squawk ident /pressure altitude info. I just thought if was funny the way that the press reported that the Russian aircraft was not squawking for all to see.

 

That very well could be the case in the U.S. I know ATC in IRL/UK don't use primary for distances greater than about 30miles, there would certainly not be overlapping coverage. Secondary provides all the info required, inc speeds altitude direction, in fact new systems are being implemented to give a readout of information that is currently only displayed in the cockpit itself.

 

You're right though, It is funny that the press would expect Russian bombers who are probably testing response times to their detection and interception to tell everyone they are there!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Crikey, lads, we could have had our own.

 

tupolev-tu-95.jpg

 

It got withdrawn, so it might come up again - I could have managed the $400. We need to get pledges in.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a little expensive, Jim. It's about US$400 more than I want to spend on it right now. Sure, I can have a couple of Murphy's models for that

Better have them throw in a tank of petrol for good luck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, heirflick said:

Could you have a word with that lot Tоварищ Boithenofski?Swearing Rage animated emoticon

I'll see what I can co.

 

Whilst discussing aerodynamic braking with somebody, I found this supreme example of the technique from an Il 76 in Malta - perhaps the cost of the brake shoes comes out of his wages?

 

Edited by Broithe
  • WOW! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, heirflick said:

Could you have a word with that lot Tоварищ Boithenofski?Swearing Rage animated emoticon

Thinking about it, you might bump into Vlad before I do..

original?width=630&version=1386430

  • Funny 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Broithe said:

Thinking about it, you might bump into Vlad before I do..

original?width=630&version=1386430

Always knew he had a summer house around Port......hard to find out where though!😞

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Terms of Use