Replies

You should have quit when you were ahead. "chaff" is not used to radar paint an object? What do ejection seats carry to locate where to look for a downed pilot? What do test missiles without warheads use to locate where the intercept occurred? You are totally braindead if you keep your current position. As I have stated, you need to go back to school. Since admitting that double returns were present in a twelve second period, you have acted punch drunk. Take a break to get your head on straight. You are not writing for a class of little kids. Aviation professionals take part in this forum. Maybe you are a friend of Elmer and that explains it.

Barf, having just spent 1.4 hours today strapped to an ejection seat, let me assure you there is absolutely no chaff anywhere near the seat. Why in the world would a guy who just got shot down want to announce his location to everyone with a radar? Remember, combat aircraft are designed for operation in a combat zone. As far as missiles, just think for a minute. Radar missile's are guided to targets using radar. That means that radars are actually tracking the targets. Those same radars are actually communicating to the missiles heading to the targets giving them updates on what vector to fly to impact their targets. Given that, why the heck would you want to obscure the point of an intercept with a chaff cloud, when you know exactly where that intercept occurred in the first place.

We have already established you are an expert in engineering domes. For that, I applaud you. But I have spent the last 12 years strapping myself to various ejection seats and training with the latest anti-air missiles. Give me credit where credit is due, and realize that you are wrong here.

Furthermore, as an engineer I assumed you would be capable of comprehending that returns separated by 4 seconds showing up 140 miles away from a radar with a 12 second sweep would be seperated by 240 miles. Therefore, the double returns depicted on page 42 are based on flawed data. On that point we agree. I assumed that given the fact that 8 radars track the P-3 and only 1 of those 8 indicate a double return, might lead a person to realize that perhaps that 1 oddball radar has some faulty data (proven by actually plotting the data provided which you are for some reason unable to do). The fact that the data from Boston Center is faulty, doesn't seem to phase you. You continue to use that very same faulty data as your only evidence that the P-3 appears to be dragging something. The fact that you are not bothered by balancing your whole flawed theory on faulty data convinces me to stay far far away from any dome you ever engineered.

Rather than spending most of your posts calling me brain dead and telling me to go back to school, why don't you offer proof of even one of the elements of your theory. I believe if you could, you would.

What do ejection seats carry to locate where to look for a downed pilot?

UHF radio beacons.

What do test missiles without warheads use to locate where the intercept occurred?

Telemetry transceivers.

Never had any chaff in my ejection seats. Martin-Baker GRU-7C from 1972-1982.

Never had any chaff in any of my test missiles. SM-2 Blk II/III, 1999-2001.

Think you have gotten bum gouge on the chaff employment as a missile spotting device.