F-16 and Cessna collide over South Carolina

Discussions about F-16.net news articles. A topic is created automatically whenever someone posts a comment in the F-16 News section.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

s_ellebaut

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 190
  • Joined: 07 Jun 2003, 16:31
  • Location: Belgium

Unread post09 Jul 2015, 15:10

erikl wrote:
hondagl1800 wrote:I was talking about the AMRAAM under the left wing. I posted one picture on Flickr. http://flic.kr/p/vJ29Z2
Has the tail number been released?

Everybody is talking about a AMRAAM but I think it's a HARM missile under the left wing.

Erik

99,99% sure that's indeed an AGM-88. Can't really tell which color the ribbons are to determine if it was an inert one or not. Most likely as the amraam and acmi are blue ribbonned.
http://www.31tigersqn.be
http://www.focaldesign.be
http://www.stefaanellebaut.be
http://www.yame64.com
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post09 Jul 2015, 16:21

s_ellebaut wrote:99,99% sure that's indeed an AGM-88. Can't really tell which color the ribbons are to determine if it was an inert one or not. Most likely as the amraam and acmi are blue ribbonned.


Of course it is a HARM. I was just trying to clear up the discussion that turned confusing when someone didn't understand it. The AIM-120's were on the wingtips. The article with the photos shows the rear end of a captive AIM-120 sticking out of the ground. Perhaps I should have added that small tidbit, but I assumed all could tell the difference. Thanks for pointing that out!
All rounds are captive. Photograph © hondagl1800

19509864435_f56ee46107_o.jpg
Photograph © hondagl1800
Offline
User avatar

durahawk

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 532
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 20:35

Unread post09 Jul 2015, 16:35

Of course it is a HARM. I was just trying to clear up the discussion that turned confusing when someone didn't understand it. The AIM-120's were on the wingtips. The article with the photos shows the rear end of a captive AIM-120 sticking out of the ground. Perhaps I should have added that small tidbit, but I assumed all could tell the difference. Thanks for pointing that out!


Correct. hondagl1800's Flickr photo shows an AMRAAM's on 96-0085 stations 9 and 1, which is a pretty standard practice (I have been told, to dampen wing flutter.) The wreckage photos show a clear "-120C" and the tailfin configuration matches that of the missile on station 9.

Anyways, this is a terrible mishap all the way around. Is it standard practice to have the F-16's radar in Air to Air search mode to avoid traffic while in cross country flight? Maybe some of the pilot folk could enlighten. Some of the eyewitness accounts I have seen say that the Cessna 150 was climbing, but I can't imagine a 150 with two passengers on a summers day has too stellar of a climb rate...
Offline

35_aoa

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 506
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2015, 04:03
  • Location: Virginia Beach, VA

Unread post09 Jul 2015, 21:12

I can't speak for the CAF, but as a generality in fighter aviation, yes, guys will typically use radar to pick out potential traffic conflicts.
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5401
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post10 Jul 2015, 13:25

Jon wrote:That photo has been used in many news articles. It's remarkable to me as there is no damage around that exhaust cone.


Or to the trailer. Looks like it was leaned up against the trailer and posed for the picture. :?:
"There I was. . ."
Offline
User avatar

Jon

F-16.net Editor

F-16.net Editor

  • Posts: 1969
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2003, 18:21

Unread post10 Jul 2015, 14:32

sferrin wrote:
Jon wrote:That photo has been used in many news articles. It's remarkable to me as there is no damage around that exhaust cone.


Or to the trailer. Looks like it was leaned up against the trailer and posed for the picture. :?:


Indeed, also thought that, but further look around, no damages. Which is great, but strange when you think that was dropped between trailers etc.
Offline

guy@rdaf.dk

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 169
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2005, 04:08

Unread post10 Jul 2015, 15:57

35_aoa wrote:I can't speak for the CAF, but as a generality in fighter aviation, yes, guys will typically use radar to pick out potential traffic conflicts.


Problem is that the F-16 radar is a pulse doppler radar. It will not see a Cessna even if it had the size of a 747, as long as its inside the radars notch and closure speed is under a certain value.
Greetings to you all at the NSA and everybody else who is reading this on ECHELON.
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post10 Jul 2015, 17:10

Jon wrote:
sferrin wrote:
Jon wrote:That photo has been used in many news articles. It's remarkable to me as there is no damage around that exhaust cone.


Or to the trailer. Looks like it was leaned up against the trailer and posed for the picture. :?:


Indeed, also thought that, but further look around, no damages. Which is great, but strange when you think that was dropped between trailers etc.


It landed there. There are pictures available, with damage to the trailer, not sure why there is a question of it...

Image
Offline

bouliult

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2010, 01:59

Unread post11 Jul 2015, 18:56

guy@rdaf.dk wrote:
35_aoa wrote:I can't speak for the CAF, but as a generality in fighter aviation, yes, guys will typically use radar to pick out potential traffic conflicts.


Problem is that the F-16 radar is a pulse doppler radar. It will not see a Cessna even if it had the size of a 747, as long as its inside the radars notch and closure speed is under a certain value.


The thing is, they were probably flying in VFR airspace. That is see and avoid territory. Eyeball mark I is the primary sensor and you should never get heads down tot fiddle with the radar...
Offline
User avatar

durahawk

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 532
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 20:35

Unread post11 Jul 2015, 20:11

guy@rdaf.dk wrote:
35_aoa wrote:I can't speak for the CAF, but as a generality in fighter aviation, yes, guys will typically use radar to pick out potential traffic conflicts.


Problem is that the F-16 radar is a pulse doppler radar. It will not see a Cessna even if it had the size of a 747, as long as its inside the radars notch and closure speed is under a certain value.



Interesting. The accounts I read were that the F-16 stuck the Cessna broadside. So if the Cessna was traveling perpendicular to the flight path of the F-16, it may very well have been indistinguishable on radar.
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post12 Jul 2015, 01:19

durahawk wrote:Interesting. The accounts I read were that the F-16 stuck the Cessna broadside. So if the Cessna was traveling perpendicular to the flight path of the F-16, it may very well have been indistinguishable on radar.


I understand your thought process, however, it would have been visible.

Doppler radar, most simply put, relies on movement (of whatever it was designed to detect) toward or away from the antenna. Because the F-16 was moving toward the path of the Cessna, it would have shown up on radar...if even for a short duration and IF the pilot was watching it. Not really posting directly to you, but rather all watching the thread. Cheers
Offline

ruderamronbo

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 313
  • Joined: 07 Jan 2005, 23:36
  • Location: Wright Patterson

Unread post12 Jul 2015, 04:29

bouliult wrote:
guy@rdaf.dk wrote:
35_aoa wrote:I can't speak for the CAF, but as a generality in fighter aviation, yes, guys will typically use radar to pick out potential traffic conflicts.


Problem is that the F-16 radar is a pulse doppler radar. It will not see a Cessna even if it had the size of a 747, as long as its inside the radars notch and closure speed is under a certain value.


The thing is, they were probably flying in VFR airspace. That is see and avoid territory. Eyeball mark I is the primary sensor and you should never get heads down tot fiddle with the radar...


There was press conference video of a base spokesman (O-6) saying the F-16 was flying IFR and talking to ATC.
Offline

guy@rdaf.dk

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 169
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2005, 04:08

Unread post12 Jul 2015, 07:29

checksixx wrote:
durahawk wrote:Interesting. The accounts I read were that the F-16 stuck the Cessna broadside. So if the Cessna was traveling perpendicular to the flight path of the F-16, it may very well have been indistinguishable on radar.


I understand your thought process, however, it would have been visible.

Doppler radar, most simply put, relies on movement (of whatever it was designed to detect) toward or away from the antenna. Because the F-16 was moving toward the path of the Cessna, it would have shown up on radar...if even for a short duration and IF the pilot was watching it. Not really posting directly to you, but rather all watching the thread. Cheers



Not true checksixx - go read the radar manual again :-)

The F-16 radar (APG66 and 68) does not depend on the F-16 speed at all! It will only display targets that have a motion towards or away from the antenne relative to the ground. The F-16s own speed is filtered out (input from the INS or EGI) to eliminate false returns from the ground. Think about it - if what you are saying is true, then the F-16 has a relative motion to mother earth, and the pilot would get one heck of a false return....

if the Cessna was flying perpendicular to the F-16, the F-16 radar may have displayed a small amount of hits with limited or no vector, generated by the propeller of the Cessna. This is since the propeller tips are moving fast enough towards and away, and thereby have enough doppler shift. Windmils will be displayed in the same way some time.

The above is from experience...
Greetings to you all at the NSA and everybody else who is reading this on ECHELON.
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post13 Jul 2015, 02:57

guy@rdaf.dk wrote:Not true checksixx - go read the radar manual again :-)

The F-16 radar (APG66 and 68) does not depend on the F-16 speed at all! It will only display targets that have a motion towards or away from the antenne relative to the ground. The F-16s own speed is filtered out (input from the INS or EGI) to eliminate false returns from the ground. Think about it - if what you are saying is true, then the F-16 has a relative motion to mother earth, and the pilot would get one heck of a false return....

if the Cessna was flying perpendicular to the F-16, the F-16 radar may have displayed a small amount of hits with limited or no vector, generated by the propeller of the Cessna. This is since the propeller tips are moving fast enough towards and away, and thereby have enough doppler shift. Windmils will be displayed in the same way some time.

The above is from experience...


I don't really need to read anything, I'm an instructor. That being said, I wasn't implying that you don't have a clue what you're talking about, just trying to put out the simplest explanation of how a doppler radar works...so relax. Not sure what your experience is, but the velocity of the source is ALWAYS part of the formula to obtain target velocity. Not sure how you can beat the math, but if you can, contact Nobel...you have a prize awaiting you. Cheers.
Offline
User avatar

durahawk

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 532
  • Joined: 03 Feb 2012, 20:35

Unread post13 Jul 2015, 03:32

Ha, well, I will do my best to try and not take sides on this one... :wink:

From my limited reading of Pulse Doppler radars, there is a tactic known as a"notching" maneuver in which one pulls perpendicular to the hostile aircraft to minimize your relative velocity to the threat in hopes that their radar will filter out the return as ground clutter, etc. Gums lays down a pretty good readers digest version here: http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10899

While I think we can all agree it's certainly not impossible for the Cessna to have been picked up, a slow moving target moving perpendicular to the radar is probably not the best scenario for success.

I agree with what was said earlier though, your ocular units should always be the first line of defense in traffic avoidance.
PreviousNext

Return to F-16 News

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest