‘Unprecedented’: 13 aircraft mysteriously disappear from radars in heart of Europe

a reply to: NoRulesAllowed

I never thought of the possibility of the opposite of Stealth, ie just blinding radar to an air corridor. That would be very useful for real attacks and even for feints to stretch resources. Probably dangerous for the Aircraft within the "blind zone" but the advantages outweigh the risks.

I wonder if it just blinds just ground radar or all systems like AWACS.

a reply to: lightedhype

Very well said; I've had the same feeling. Something's just not right.

a reply to: pavil

The problem is that you can't block a primary radar system with a non-stealth aircraft. Military, and missile radar relies on an actual beam returned to the antenna. The only way to block that is to either absorb it, or bounce it away from the antenna (think F-117 design).

Communications satellite gone awry. The length of disruption would be in the ball park for the length of time a comsat would be visible from about 120 km traveling at something like 2.5-3.0 km/s, which would be nominal attributes of a low earth orbit communications satellite. Tough to say if it's purposeful or just a malfunction/programing error. These days all bets are off.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: pavil

The problem is that you can't block a primary radar system with a non-stealth aircraft. Military, and missile radar relies on an actual beam returned to the antenna. The only way to block that is to either absorb it, or bounce it away from the antenna (think F-117 design).

Or blind it with a EF-111A or EA-6 but then the bad guys knows for sure that something is up. Not stealth tactics though.

a reply to: roadgravel

Exactly. Nothing like a giant neon sign screaming "Here I am, come get me!"

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: McGinty

Because it only works on secondary radar. Fire control radar will still see you.

Well that put me straight

a reply to: McGinty

It'd be nice of you could. Then its just a matter of slapping onto our current aircraft inventory, and saving billions instead of buying new aircraft.

originally posted by: masqua
My immediate thought on this: Would it affect incoming missile defences as well?

Nothing would be better for 'first strike capabilities' than if those missiles effectively disappeared from radar.

If 13 ICBM's disappear on radar for the duration they are talking about, then we wouldn't even need to worry about it, especially if those people live at ground zero.

So have I got this right...13 planes both times for 25 minutes?

What/who were on these planes? Or is that irrelevant seeing as nothing happened to them? It sounds like some sort of 'controlled' experiment over an incredibly busy air space so the 'controller' could practice homing in on their 'pretend' target?

I'm struggling to understand the techy speak on here, but even with my limited science understanding it's quite bazaar to say the least and very, very scary at worst.

Have any of you tried figuring it from 'outside the box' and completely in the opposite direction from what your current knowledge and understanding of such things tells you? Because it seems to me this is something new, and therefore needs 'new' thinking perhaps.

Rainbows
Jane

a reply to: angelchemuel

So have I got this right...13 planes both times for 25 minutes?

That isn't exactly what Reuters reported. More intermittent.

Zaphod58

If this has been mentioned or suggested and I just overlooked or missed it, then apologies to the group.

What is the possibility of the radar having ghost blips appear (as in Forced on but not really there). Seems that a form of distraction by fake transponders would be of great importance to a governing body wanting to mislead or use misdirection.. yes?

Just asking if this could ever be a possibility?

Radio blackouts can be created by the sun. Any connection.?

Seems all of these may pave way for a new syatem........Iridium perhaps.

a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

Absolutely. At last one electronic warfare system that I'm aware of can do that when active. It's capable of adding or removing returns from the screen.

It works best with a stealthy platform, but it could work with a non-stealthy platform, just not as well.

a reply to: SurrenderingAmerica
After mh370 I find all this very disturbing, to say the least.
Rebel5

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: JohnnyAnonymous

Absolutely. At last one electronic warfare system that I'm aware of can do that when active. It's capable of adding or removing returns from the screen.

Surely only anonymous radar returns though? For it to be identified as a legitimate aircraft the transponder code would have to been issued by the ATC computers of who ever's airspace the aircraft were flying through for them to show up as an aircraft call sign or flight number on their radar screens.If not it would just show up as the transponder code on the screen,the same as when one controller hands the aircraft onto the next controller who forgets to give the aircraft a new transponder code.

a reply to: Imagewerx

Unless the system were to get into the radar system and tell it not to display a code, or anything else.

Hypothetically of course.

I don't like this one bit. Someone, somewhere, and somehow is testing defenses. I have a bad feeling we're about to find out exactly what happened to MH370...after it slips through undetected and finds its' target.

a reply to: Zaphod58
It would still need the ground based ATC computer hacking into to allocate the bogus transponder code.It would also have to create a bogus flight plan would it not to add authenticity to the image on the radar screen?

It would still need the ground based ATC computer hacking into to allocate the bogus transponder code.It would also have to create a bogus flight plan would it not to add authenticity to the image on the radar screen?

Just adding extra aircraft into the system would be similar to a denial of service attack. Controllers would have extra work sorting out the situation.