Someone correct me if I have this wrong, but from what I’ve heard, his statement about “The flight path climbed up precipitously to 45,000 feet, stalled, and then dove down to 25,000 feet ‘til it was recovered” is based on interpolation from primary radar returns only. If the transponder was still on and these altitudes were actually reported via Mode C transponder, then I withdraw any disagreement. But if the captain is basing his comments on data taken from primary radar returns only then it’s extremely flimsy evidence because primary surveillance radar (PSR) only provides distance and bearing information - not elevation.
The source of this data has been given as “China and the US” which, since we don’t have any airports over there, I take to mean China and the “US Military”, which also has more sophisticated radar systems that can provide more precise information (PAR) for ground controlled approaches (GCA). But these radars have a range of 10-20 miles and are used to allow ground controllers to guide approaching aircraft onto a carrier, and it’s implausible to think that one would happen to be looking 5 to 8 miles staight up at exactly the right time.
You are absolute correct. The altitude thing is getting way too much attention. It is likely bogus, or at least inaccurate.
The captain is merely making a professional judgment call based on his experiences, there is no assertion whatsoever...........
And FWIW, his assessment certainly makes more sense that the rest of the 24/7 crap that is being fed to us by the MSM.......
BUT, maybe we can figure out a way to discredit him too...........
Some primary radar provide altitude, either by using a pencil beam (like a fire control radar) or surveillance radar with stacked beams. They transmit a big honking fat fan beam like a conventional surveillance radar and receive on a bunch of beams stacked in elevation. You can use the power ratio of the signal in adjacent beams to estimate elevation angle, and thence calculate height.
The png won’t embed, but look a figure 3 in this presentation:
http://www.radartutorial.eu/06.antennas/an12.en.html
As a practical matter, if the target is low to the horizon, even with a pencil beam, the scatter off the surface adds to the direct return in an unpredictable fashion, making elevation measurements unreliable. From about one beamwidth in elevation up, it’s pretty reliable.
Any navy aegis or carrier radar in the region (not blocked by earth curvature ~ 16 nm line of sight increasing distance with altitude) would have the radar and transponder data - we normally have a number of capable ships around Singapore and the straits. They track everything they get a return for and will highlight anything without a transponder immediately.
The approach radar you refer to is not what is used for tracking purposes. It is specifically engineered for the launch/approach purpose.
It would be unexpected that there is no tracking data all the way (from the turnoff to whereever it went) and we likely know what really occurred.
The transponder turnoff would have been noted almost immediately and flagged by whoever had the air traffic radar and CIC watch posts - and given the timing they would have been on watch only an hour or so.
Whether we or another country had such a ship in the vicinity (there wasn’t a carrier or LHD in the area, but there is normally an Aegis destroyer or cruiser) is the only question...but given proximity to the such a strategic strait and Singapore I have little doubt there was such a ship in the area. Singapore has a phased array radar on their Formidable class frigates that appears to be similar to earlier aegis variants - whether they actively track the way we do I’m unsure.