Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Is that Swedish sub somewhere in South China Sea? If yes, we are game for a rematch, and with real ammo this time.Are we talking about the same US aircraft carriers that got sunk by a Swedish diesel-electric submarine?
A small Swedish diesel submarine sent shockwaves through the maritime world by 'sinking' in a wargame one of the most advanced warships in the globe: a U.S. nuclear-powered aircraft carrier.www.19fortyfive.com
No need for Swedish subs as Chinese nuclear submarines are in the South China Sea China would not need subs to sink your carriers anyway.Is that Swedish sub somewhere in South China Sea? If yes, we are game for a rematch, and with real ammo this time.
Ah the typical retarded argument from you. ADS-B was switched on for her entire flight, that means even the average Joe could track her plane as it's publicly available information.HARAHAHAHAARAHARHAH....
As if YOU have a goddamned clue on how ADS-B works. Almost spit out my bourbon reading your nonsensical shit.
Let me say that we do not know if this story is true, but for the sake of discussion, let us ASSUME that the story is true. So how does ADS-B come into the picture like how Mr. S10 portrayed it?
In air traffic control (ATC), radar alone does not tell the whole story. All radar does is create a 'blip' on the scope. The radar computer will create these target resolutions:
- Aspect angle
Nothing more. ATC depends on the COOPERATION of the target for more information, such as United 123 or Qatar 456 or Air France 789, and so on. So how does ATC know that the target is from United Airlines or Qatar Airways or Air France? By querying the targets and received responses, hence, the COOPERATION angle. In the old days, that cooperation was made via VOICE responses from the targets. Then ATC would literally write that info down on a tracking sheet. But as technology progressed, we made that cooperation simpler by having the query/response automatic.
Automatic Dependent Surveillance–Broadcast (ADS–B) is an advanced surveillance technology that combines an aircraft’s positioning source, aircraft avionics, and a ground infrastructure to create an accurate surveillance interface between aircraft and ATC. ADS–B is a performance–based surveillance technology that is more precise than radar and consists of two different services: ADS–B Out and ADS–B In.ADS-B Out works by broadcasting information about an aircraft's GPS location, altitude, ground speed and other data to ground stations and other aircraft, once per second.
Note the highlighted. It means, assuming this story is true, US Representative and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's flight was constantly broadcasting its...
...Once per second. Three out of four ain't bad.
This broadcast is independent of any radar operation from any ATC. The pilot can even turn it off IF HE WANTED.
ADS-B stands for Automatic Dependent Surveillance – Broadcast:
- Automatic because it periodically transmits information with no pilot or operator involvement required.
- Dependent because the position and velocity vectors are derived from the Global Positioning System (GPS) or other suitable Navigation Systems (i.e., FMS).
- Surveillance because it provides a method of determining 3 dimensional position and identification of aircraft, vehicles, or other assets.
- Broadcast because it transmits the information available to anyone with the appropriate receiving equipment.
For ATC, the combination of radar resolutions and COOPERATIVE aircraft response create the most accurate real time information on Pelosi's flight throughout its journey.
So who uses ADS-B ?
Countries with ADS-B Out mandates and proposals include:Australia. 1090ES required for all IFR operations.Canada. Nav Canada has stated its intent to require 1090ES ADS-B Out equipage with antenna diversity, but rulemaking has not been completed. Nav Canada will use the Aireon space-based ADS-B system, of which it is an owner.Europe. 1090ES required for IFR aircraft with a MTOW exceeding 12,566 pounds or maximum cruise airspeed faster than 250 KTAS.Hong Kong. 1090ES required in all airspace, FL290 and above.Indonesia. 1090ES required, FL290 and above.Mexico. Mexico’s January 2020 mandate for 1090ES ADS-B has been delayed to January 1, 2022. AOPA has learned Mexico will consider including 978 MHz as an option for compliance.Singapore. 1090ES required on specified airways.South Africa. 1090ES required for all IFR operations and for any aircraft first registered or replacing its transponder and flown in Class A, B, D, or E airspace.Sri Lanka. 1090ES required within the Colombo Terminal Control Area (TMA), FL290 and above.Taiwan. 1090ES required in all airspace, FL290 and above.Vietnam. 1090ES required on specified airways.
Taiwan required ADS-B responses. The 'FL290' mean altitude 29,000 ft.
Now, we return to this story. If the US military sent a protective EM shield to Speaker Pelosi's flight, whatever we did to China's radar is independent of what Taiwanese ATC required of her aircraft. The ADS-B information is not automatically deciphered by missiles. That information, sent once per sec, is actually unknown by the missile and the word 'unknown' mean unaware. That mean Mr. S10 could have actually monitored, not tracked, Pelosi's flight based solely upon the COOPERATIVE nature of ADS-B technology. And as he monitored her flight, China's missiles would have missed her aircraft.
Again, big assumption that this story is true.
In sum, do not take seriously whatever technical issue the PDF Chinese says. None of them ever served in the Parade Line Army (PLA). Not even as a cook.
Then why brought it up? Bottom line is that you know nothing about exercises in general, let alone that particular exercise, to speak with any level of credibility.No need for Swedish subs as Chinese nuclear submarines are in the South China Sea China would not need subs to sink your carriers anyway.
Yes, the DungFling missiles. Their alleged efficacy have been debated and found wanting. But you keep on trying to impress China with your cheerleading efforts on this little corner of the internet.DF-100, DF-17, DF-21D and DF-26 will turn those carriers into sitting ducks. It would one heck of sight seeing all those F-18s and F-35 burning
Sounds like YOU are the retarded one here. ADS-B broadcast is the civilian version of IFF. But if the Parade Line Army (PLA) can monitor Pelosi's flight but they are blinded by our EM measures, what good is that? Can you dispute anything I said in post 35? No, you cannot. I doubt you even understood it. The readers can see who is the idiot, and it ain't me, pal.Ah the typical retarded argument from you. ADS-B was switched on for her entire flight, that means even the average Joe could track her plane as it's publicly available information.
Yet your retarded as somehow believes that PLA could not locate her plane when her C40C position, altitude and speed were broadcasted. Like I said idiot, keep believing these stories. I'm sure the PLA is loving it.
Pelosi's plane was broadcasting its position through ADS-B at all times, which meant you could track her plane the entire way. Here you are claiming bullshit about how PLA could not find it. These days bullshit is all you got anyway.Sounds like YOU are the retarded one here. ADS-B broadcast is the civilian version of IFF. But if the Parade Line Army (PLA) can monitor Pelosi's flight but they are blinded by our EM measures, what good is that? Can you dispute anything I said in post 35? No, you cannot. I doubt you even understood it. The readers can see who is the idiot, and it ain't me, pal.
Clearly you have a reading comprehension problem. See the thread's title, dumbass.Pelosi's plane was broadcasting its position through ADS-B at all times, which meant you could track her plane the entire way. Here you are claiming bullshit about how PLA could not find it. These days bullshit is all you got anyway.
Maybe use the single digit brain cells you have left and ponder that for a moment.
Chinese and the US forces were locked in a reconnaissance and electronic warfare tussle in the lead-up to and after US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's trip to Taiwan, according to military sources and defence analysts.
But not all of it was successful, according to sources close to the Chinese military.
State broadcaster CCTV reported the Chinese military used naval and air forces in multiple locations to conduct "full tracking and surveillance" against the US Air Force transport aircraft flying Pelosi and her delegation from Kuala Lumpur to Taipei on August 2.
The tracking was aimed at "deterrence", the report quoted PLA Major General Meng Xiangqing, from the PLA National Defence University, as saying.
However a source said the People's Liberation Army's tracking efforts - which involved jets and Type 055 destroyers - failed.
"The PLA deployed some electronic warfare aircraft such as the J-16D and warships to try to locate Pelosi's aircraft, but were not successful," the source said.
"Almost all the PLA electronic warfare equipment couldn't work properly because they were all jammed by electronic interference by the American aircraft strike group sent by the Pentagon to escort her."
On the flight, Pelosi's aircraft took an unusually circuitous route by heading southeast towards the Indonesian part of Borneo, then turning north to fly along the eastern part of the Philippines.
He Yuan Ming, an independent airpower analyst, said it was not surprising that the Chinese vessels did not detect the flight.
"Even if the Type 055 (destroyer's) radar is said to be 500km (310 miles), its effective range in the real world would be much less," He said.
"Couple this with the vast operating area as well as the Type 055's relative newness both in terms of its hardware (capabilities) and software (crew), there should be little surprise that the PLA (naval) cruiser could not locate (Pelosi's plane)."
Pelosi's trip was followed by a series of unprecedented PLA war games encircling Taiwan.
On the second day of the exercises, the US sent at least seven reconnaissance and early warning aircraft to waters near Taiwan, according to the Beijing-based South China Sea Strategic Situation Probing Initiative.
The deployment included a RC-135V and RC-135S for missile surveillance, three P-8A maritime anti-submarine planes, three E-3G spy jets and one U-2S high-altitude monitor plane, supported by six KC-135 refueling aircraft.
Andrei Chang, editor-in-chief of Canada-based Kanwa Asian Defence, said that with its technology it was very likely that the American navy realised that the PLA had deployed submarines to waters off Taiwan, despite silence on both sides over the involvement of the vessels in the war games.
Chang also said it was likely the US played a role behind the scenes in Japan and Taiwan.
During the drills, Taiwanese authorities said the PLA sent 11 ballistic missiles into waters to the north, south and east of the island.
Japan said five of those missiles fell within its exclusive economic zone, an area that China does not recognise.
"Beijing declined to reveal how many ballistic missiles it had launched, while Taipei and Tokyo's announcement could be seen as a warning to the mainland that they are able to detect and track the PLA missiles, which is part of the electronic warfare tactics," Chang said.
He said the missiles would have been tracked by the Leshan radar station in Hsinchu county on Taiwan.
Operating since 2013, the system can detect a missile launched from as far away as 5,000km and track projectiles in motion in great detail, even from a distance of 2,000km - a range that covers mainland China and the entire South China Sea.
"The long-range early warning radar system on Leshan was established under the assistance of the US, with some American experts still stationed in the radar centre," Chang said.
The first source said electronic warfare between the PLA and US military went back to the 1995-96 Taiwan Strait crisis when American forces jammed almost all the PLA's military radar systems during its missile tests.
"That's the key reason that prompted China to develop its own BeiDou Satellite Navigation System," the source said, adding that both sides were keen to size up the other's strength in the area.
"Both China and the US wanted to examine each other's electronic warfare capabilities this time. The PLA is especially keen to make sure its technology is strong enough to cope with a possible Taiwan contingency."
It is alleged that the Parade Line Army (PLA) uses its own radar systems to track the plane but the US put up an EM shield, aka 'jamming', and this is independent of ADS-B. See post 35.A public website tracked that plane and whole world watched.
But US military denied that to PLA?
Hey dumbshit, let me make it clear to you so even a monkey with 3 brain cells could understand.Clearly you have a reading comprehension problem. See the thread's title, dumbass.