Timeline for Is it possible to fly 4 helicopters anywhere in a country without official knowledge?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
14 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 26, 2011 at 20:11 | comment | added | Ernie | Re: Soviet Russian surveillance vs Pakistani. It's worth noting that in the past 26 years, things have changed a tad. Also, the Russians may not have been using the very latest technology at the time (radars are expensive and all, and you want to use them for a while anyway), while the Pakistanis are almost invariably currently using something that is simultaneously newer and cheaper. More than likely the Pakistani air defence system works just great, but that these helicopters exploited weaknesses in it. | |
| May 31, 2011 at 5:36 | comment | added | jwenting | Brightblades only seems to know civilian procedures. Military radars typically skinpaint by default as they're looking specifically for targets that don't have an operational transponder :) | |
| May 5, 2011 at 16:54 | comment | added | JasonR | "but what does he know, he was always in back of the airplane flying the boom" Does that mean you were my chaufer, taking me to work every day? ;) | |
| May 4, 2011 at 22:44 | comment | added | Larian LeQuella | Brightblades overstated the need for a transponder (but what does he know, he was always in back of the airplane flying the boom). Skinpaints are possible, but they don't give a lot of info. Not to mention that a target needs to be out of ground clutter. Something I doubt these helicopters were doing. | |
| May 4, 2011 at 16:26 | comment | added | DJClayworth | @Brightblades ATC needs a transponder to IDENTIFY an aircraft, but not to detect it. ATC can pick up an aircraft by radar, and know its position (subject to all the restrictions identified by other answers) they just won't know what it is without a transponder or radio contact. | |
| S May 4, 2011 at 15:44 | history | suggested | JasonR | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Edit for Clarity
|
| May 4, 2011 at 15:30 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 4, 2011 at 15:44 | |||||
| May 4, 2011 at 14:28 | comment | added | user5341 | AFAIK Rust flew in on the day when Anti-Air Defense was celebrating their official holiday. Read: pretty much everyone was likely heavily drunk, even those on duty (this comes from talking to a guy who at the time recently retired from Anti-Air Defense). Not a likely chance of that in Pakistan. | |
| May 4, 2011 at 14:27 | comment | added | Mike Dunlavey | According to the link, he was detected, part of the time. They just didn't take him seriously and erred on the side of non-action. This was only 4 years after KAL 007 where they erred on the side of action. A friend's brother was on that plane. That also helped Gorbachev. | |
| May 4, 2011 at 14:08 | comment | added | JasonR | ALL ATC (Air Traffic Control radar) is dependent on a Transponder to identify an aircraft accurately. They are able to do "skin paints" but are generally not powerful enough to do that reliably. The aircraft being tracked needs to activelly broadcast their position, something the SPEC OPS guys probably weren't doing. | |
| S May 4, 2011 at 13:53 | history | suggested | splattne | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Wikipedia link to Mathias Rust, the "some guy"
|
| May 4, 2011 at 13:10 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S May 4, 2011 at 13:53 | |||||
| May 4, 2011 at 12:22 | comment | added | Nevermind | You're thinking about this guy: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust | |
| May 4, 2011 at 12:08 | history | answered | George | CC BY-SA 3.0 |