OK, did we just have a small earthquake in Central Jersey at 1:28pm?
- Thread starter ruready4somefootball
- Start date
Go to a few meetings where you're not on-line and the world nearly ends. The yentas on FB are all over this one - of course, none of them believe the sonic boom explanation, lol.
I had a buddy who used to work at NAFEC in Pomona and he said they used to do all kinds of crazy stuff back in the 70s and 80s.
I had a buddy who used to work at NAFEC in Pomona and he said they used to do all kinds of crazy stuff back in the 70s and 80s.
This is a stupid conversation and I'm out of it. WSR-88s do not detect aircraft. Wrong pulse-width. They can detect birds and bats, under specific meteorological conditions, but aircraft are too large.
How about an aircraft with the RCS of a hummingbird?
FYI. My job is director of R&D for a rather well known aircraft. Don't always take everything you read so seriously.
I don't think the cross-section is part of the actual calculation. RCS is kind of a derivation, based on visibility "equivalencies" with regard to surveillance radars with longer pulse widths.
I don't take everything I read seriously if I know it's not trying to be serious. Pulse-doppler weather radars don't see aircraft. If you think about it, it would be a pretty shitty and annoying weather radar if it saw all the planes.
Nobody's seen Banker in a while, and you just KNOW he's up to something. Today was a good flying day, so you fill in the pieces.
I don't know what the frequency of the weather radar in question is but traditionally WxR are sub 1 Ghz. Great for detecting groups of rain droplets and other weather phenomena.
The problem is that the RCS of the signal generated by WxR is huge and it produces a lot of clutter so it is hard to isolate a single target and especially to identify it. You don't really care too much about that though if you are looking at huge weather artifacts.
However if you are looking for "something" and don't care much about the exact location then WxR work better than targeting radar for detecting stealth aircraft. Now if you want to use it for more than just seeing "something" out there it requires quite a bit of signal processing to declutter your air picture. The apertures are also quite large and are not conducive for tactical weapon technology.
The Serbs used this phenomena to shoot down an F-117 in the 90s. I don't recall all of the details though.
So in conclusion it not impossible that the local WxR saw "something".
Last edited:
I found an article that featured an interview with the Serb commander of the AA unit that waxed the 117 in '99. His claim was that they "modified" their SA-3 acquisition radar to be able to detect the Nighthawk "when the bomb bay doors were open or when the wheel wells were open".
My recollection of the operational characteristics of the -117, which saw combat for the first time (though secret) during my time in the USAF, was that it was detectable by pretty much any radar when the bomb bay doors or wheel wells were open. So... I don't know how impressed I am that they were able to see it under those conditions.
Regardless, the SA-3 used the old P-15 radar for target acquisition. It was a C-band radar, so that puts its frequency in the 4-8GHz range. All of our own surveillance radars, both fixed (FPS-27A) and mobile (TPS-43E) were C-band as well, nominally around 5ish GHz, if memory serves.
Yes that was the story. But the radar in question was modified to use long wave-lengths. It was no longer operating in C-Band. Also there is a big difference between detecting - identifying - targeting. I'm not an expert on stealth but my contention holds that it would not be impossible for a WxR to see something weird in the right conditions. Could it lock, track, and target? No. That's where Serb secret sauce comes in. Also it is not likely that an F-35 has it's bomb bay or landing gear doors open when going trans-sonic. That what my comment about not believing everything you read to be true was directed. Anyway.. Interesting conversation. No more from me though.
But see, that's the thing - WSR-88s can't see things going that fast for a bunch of reasons. First, because of their frequency, PW and PRF more or less prevents it. Second, it's just plain filtered out. They don't see things moving faster than a falling raindrop for the same reason that aircraft surveillance and air traffic control radars don't see things that aren't moving - those things are categorically "clutter" and get "de-cluttered" in the receiver.
Of course, you can turn the clutter filters off, but then you'd see more than just that one target.
I'm not denying that there may have some kind of artifact showing up on somebody's weather radar (and it wasn't ABC-TV's radar, because they can't see that far, so it would have to have been aggregated data from the WSR-88 at Fort Dix). I'm just saying that it's extremely unlikely that it saw an F-35.
Putting aside for a moment the fact that ABC claimed to have captured an artifact over the middle of NJ and the military says the F-35 was off the coast - one thought comes to mind...
I'm wondering what a shock wave would look like to a pulse-doppler radar.
Regardless, the people hooting and hollering about how funny it is that a "stealth aircraft" could have possibly been seen by a radar need to understand that "stealth", by definition, precludes transonic flight. Sonic booms aren't particularly stealthy. The F-35 isn't a "stealth fighter" in the same sense as an F-117 or a B-2, both of which are incapable of transonic flight. It's a fighter aircraft with stealth characteristics. It's not the same thing.
Navy flight training exercise off the coast.http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/mystery-sonic-boom-did-not-come-from-atlantic-city-base-1755786208
All I know is if he's going to be late to the party he better bring booze or some excellent food, and Tostitos doesn't cut it...
Ice quake?
Due to lower-frequency vibrations of cryoseisms,[6] some seismic monitoring stations may not record their occurrence.[9] Although cryoseisms release less energy than most tectonic events,[10] they can still cause damage or significant changes to an affected area.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryoseism
Due to lower-frequency vibrations of cryoseisms,[6] some seismic monitoring stations may not record their occurrence.[9] Although cryoseisms release less energy than most tectonic events,[10] they can still cause damage or significant changes to an affected area.[
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryoseism
My extended family used to have a tradition of going to a beachfront house in NC every summer for what amounted to a week-long family reunion. During those weeks each summer it was not uncommon to hear booms coming in off the ocean from a clear sky, day or night. Some of them were especially sharp and loud like a cannon shot. Being an ex-AF guy, I assumed they were sonic booms even though we typically never saw or heard military aircraft in the area. Then one afternoon a few of us were sitting on the porch facing the ocean when an F-15E with a big "SJ" on the tail came streaking past less than 100 yards off the beach and so low that if I had known the pilot or wizzo I probably would have recognized them. That pretty much confirmed my suspicion that the boys from Goldsboro were responsible for at least some of the booms.
I should really just let this go, but... I just can't.
Cryoseisms require a rapid drop in temperature to sub-zero levels. So 46 degrees wouldn't work.
They also require bedrock. There is no bedrock in South Jersey - the entire area is alluvial plain. You can go into the Pine Barrens and drill straight down, you won't find rock several miles.
