Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Defending the Irish airspace

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by pym View Post
    Apologies - forgot about this - I believe this is the site:
    Compute summits visible from any location worldwide


    Regarding some of the comments above:- with three primary radar heads, I believe there simply have to be some significant blind spots at low level.

    Advances in RF such DSP have aided radars in conditions like clutter, rain etc - however - you're not going to get a great Primary UHF radar return from an aircraft if your signal and the echo from the aircraft, both have to go through tons of granite in Co. Wicklow.

    I'd love to see a stress test of the system, be it civilian or military led - tracking a transponderless jet at low level is tricky for anyone.
    Only efficient way is to have a radar above the target aircraft.............

    Comment


    • Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
      Well, three primaries probably covers most of the blind spots and are primarily concerned with airport traffic or high altitude crossing over traffic. What may be out of sight to one radar may be visible to another. You'd still have to work hard at it to stay out of sight to radar.
      Well, to use my example of blind spots possibly caused by Wicklow Mts - Shannon and Cork are both roughly 100 miles away from Wicklow.

      Due to earths curvature, leaving aside hills, mountains, etc, the theoretical max range of a radar antenna located at 150ft searching for an aircraft at 2000ft is about 80 miles.

      In reality you've got the Knockmealdowns, Blackstairs and other hills in the way too.

      But that's just Wicklow - I'd expect significant Primary Radar blackspots at low level across the NW of the country given the distance from the 3 sites.

      I've no doubt that the existing IAA infrastructure is fine for dealing with co-operative traffic and that's what it's built for.

      Anyway, this is probably all a bit academic given the many more pressing problems facing the DF at the moment.

      Comment


      • We have explained and discussed the differences between primary and secondary radar many time but just like the discussion over AIS it is not the planes who have a transponder on that are of interest to the DF but those who do not. Just as many argue we do not need more ships to perform fishery patrol because we know where every boat is as the have AIS so it is with aircraft. The ones who are doing something they should not normally are those who do not send out a signal saying where they are.

        A plane can lose a radio so it is no longer in contact with ATC, or its transponder could fail. But normally ATC will know who they are and where they are going and will still be able to track them if in normal cruise. Having said that most countries today want to know what is going on in an aircraft that has lost radio contact and will scramble some fighters to go have a look. Sadly in some cases like Helios and Payne Stuart it is to confirm the worst, most however is that there has been an equipment failure. And then we have the Russians trying to annoy the Brits by trying to find a backdoor route to give them a shock.

        But the first step would be to get the 100% picture, to have a integrated airspace picture. Today we cannot even know if someone is flying into the airspace we control at low level without a transponder turned on.

        Comment


        • Looking at the geography of our little island we have a big flat bit in the middle surrounded by a lot of different mountain ranges. Even if our mountains are not the tailest in Europe, most of the key ranges are above 2000ft. Which is why our primary radars are near the coast, and some on the tops of hills!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
            Looking at the geography of our little island we have a big flat bit in the middle surrounded by a lot of different mountain ranges. Even if our mountains are not the tailest in Europe, most of the key ranges are above 2000ft. Which is why our primary radars are near the coast, and some on the tops of hills!
            The 3 primary radars are at the 3 main airports

            Page 4 shows the coverage:

            Comment


            • Originally posted by DeV View Post
              The 3 primary radars are at the 3 main airports

              Page 4 shows the coverage:
              http://iaip.iaa.ie/iaip/Published%20...ENR_1_6_EN.pdf
              Yes, pg 4 shows the range coverage, which is only 120km, it does not show the coverage for aircraft at different altitudes. As pointed out by pym unless we have some super new high tech radar that can see through granite there are blind spots. Even if we do have these super radars there are considerable gaps, part of Keryy, Waterford, Wexford and almost the entire NW are not covered by PSR
              The IAA is primarily interested in guiding civil traffic to safe landing at one of the major airports. They do not and cannot monitor all traffic that could enter our airspace without a transponder.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                Yes, pg 4 shows the range coverage, which is only 120km, it does not show the coverage for aircraft at different altitudes. As pointed out by pym unless we have some super new high tech radar that can see through granite there are blind spots. Even if we do have these super radars there are considerable gaps, part of Keryy, Waterford, Wexford and almost the entire NW are not covered by PSR
                The IAA is primarily interested in guiding civil traffic to safe landing at one of the major airports. They do not and cannot monitor all traffic that could enter our airspace without a transponder.
                I know

                I was pointing out that none of our primary radar sites are on tops of mountains they are sited at the 3 main airports

                Comment


                • Originally posted by DeV View Post
                  I know

                  I was pointing out that none of our primary radar sites are on tops of mountains they are sited at the 3 main airports
                  We do put some of our secondary radars on mountain tops, or at least up a bit higher than normal.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                    We do put some of our secondary radars on mountain tops, or at least up a bit higher than normal.
                    Correct

                    Comment


                    • Ireland Places Order for Additional RBS 70 Bolide Missiles
                      http://www.deagel.com/news/Ireland-P...000018443.aspx

                      Just over €6m

                      Comment


                      • Slovakia signs for 14 Lockheed Martin F-16 combat aircraft
                        https://defence-blog.com/news/slovak...-aircraft.html

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by EUFighter View Post
                          Ireland Places Order for Additional RBS 70 Bolide Missiles
                          http://www.deagel.com/news/Ireland-P...000018443.aspx

                          Just over €6m
                          This must be near the top of the list for stupid spending in the DF.

                          Spending €6m (albeit over a few years) on a mission system that will spend its entire life in a bunker before being trollied out a few months before expiration to be flown to a range in Sweden so they can be fired off.

                          I understand the need to maintain a capability but to maintain this, which will never EVER be used in anger is just a waste of money no matter how you look at it.

                          Its similar to the PC-9s doing air gunnery every year or dusting off the 105 guns once a year.

                          Surely a better use of funds would be to invest in a proper military radar system as per 2015 WP.

                          A complete farce.

                          Comment


                          • Better to have and not need then need and not have.
                            It was the year of fire...the year of destruction...the year we took back what was ours.
                            It was the year of rebirth...the year of great sadness...the year of pain...and the year of joy.
                            It was a new age...It was the end of history.
                            It was the year everything changed.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Chuck View Post
                              This must be near the top of the list for stupid spending in the DF.

                              Spending €6m (albeit over a few years) on a mission system that will spend its entire life in a bunker before being trollied out a few months before expiration to be flown to a range in Sweden so they can be fired off.

                              I understand the need to maintain a capability but to maintain this, which will never EVER be used in anger is just a waste of money no matter how you look at it.

                              Its similar to the PC-9s doing air gunnery every year or dusting off the 105 guns once a year.

                              Surely a better use of funds would be to invest in a proper military radar system as per 2015 WP.

                              A complete farce.
                              So in that case we should get rid of the DF and invest in the Civil Defence, Coast Guard and Gardai

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Chuck View Post
                                This must be near the top of the list for stupid spending in the DF.

                                Spending €6m (albeit over a few years) on a mission system that will spend its entire life in a bunker before being trollied out a few months before expiration to be flown to a range in Sweden so they can be fired off.

                                I understand the need to maintain a capability but to maintain this, which will never EVER be used in anger is just a waste of money no matter how you look at it.

                                Its similar to the PC-9s doing air gunnery every year or dusting off the 105 guns once a year.

                                Surely a better use of funds would be to invest in a proper military radar system as per 2015 WP.

                                A complete farce.
                                And what do you do with the "proper military radar system"?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X