Border Patrol Helicopter Had Bizarre Encounter With Mysterious "Highly Modified" Drone (Updated)

[skidplate]

With all the thermal imaging capabilities of the cameras on the BP helo as well as TPD's helo, not one was able to capture any video of this "DRONE". Davis Monthan control or Tucson Intl airport never picked anything up on radar?. The whole story smells like bovine excrement.

 

[Arkmood]

The whole story smells like bovine excrement.

Agreed - most likely a lead-in to the supposed UFO Pentagon Disclosure nothingburger...

 

[Arkmood]

Radio Transmissions From Police Helicopter's Chase Of Bizarre Craft Over Tucson Add To Mystery

"Its abilities were pretty incredible" — FAA audio points to confusion during and after police helicopter's encounter with strange aircraft.

www.thedrive.com

 

[zob-slantzero]

I think that the idea that ATC should be able to pick up a small drone on Radar is based on TV and movies as opposed to reality. It seems that drones are made of as much non-metallic (lighter) parts with as much of the weight made up with (well let's call it radar absorbing material) composite materials. As far as I know FAA radar is now all digital so unless the drone has a transponder or ADSB equipment they are not going to be able to see it. Skinpaint is a thing of the past.

Just my random thoughts.

 

[zob-slantzero]

Duplicate post for some reason.

 

[Token]

I think that the idea that ATC should be able to pick up a small drone on Radar is based on TV and movies as opposed to reality. It seems that drones are made of as much non-metallic (lighter) parts with as much of the weight made up with (well let's call it radar absorbing material) composite materials. As far as I know FAA radar is now all digital so unless the drone has a transponder or ADSB equipment they are not going to be able to see it. Skinpaint is a thing of the past.

FAA still has both primary (skin) and secondary (transponder) radar.

The skin track may be digital video, but it is still generated from a real radar return. So it is not wrong to say the FAA is pretty much all digital, but digital does not mean no skin track capability.

Think about it this way, even if all of your long range stuff relies on a cooperative target (a transponder of some kind), you still need the ability to see a non cooperative target, such as rain, windshear, an aircraft that forgot to turn on the transponder, or an aircraft that has a failed transponder and is NORDO. So even though transponders are the primary mode these days (despite still being called secondary radars) it will be a long time before the FAA gives up the ability to do skin track.

With that said, FAA radars are not designed to work with very small RCS targets. When you design a radar you do so with a target set in mind, size, shape, speed, etc. You don't spend the effort, and associated cost, to build a system that is optimized to track a -10 or -20 dBsm target when the smallest aircraft you anticipate tracking is probably in excess of 0 dBsm, and most commercial aircraft will be well in excess of +10 dBsm.

It would not surprise me that even if they were specifically looking for drones with FAA skin radars they might have trouble seeing them. It is actually a tough target set to deal with. The skin return might be very low, with specific narrow angles of high return, the motion Doppler might be low, and the high Doppler portions of the aircraft, say the props with all their wide Doppler smearing, are generally made of low reflectivity materials.

T!

 

[prcguy]

Not sure how many here understand terms like reflectivity measured in flat plate dB/square meter but this brings back lots of memories of my RCS measurement days. BTW, we could measure RCS a good 40dB or more down from numbers posted here, the ultimate number is probably still classified and that will not only measure a tiny hobby drone at a distance but some large insects just fine.

We should all just face the fact that alien's have been among us for a long time. Just take a listen as they try and communicate with the mother ship on CB channel 6.

Oh, wrong mother ship, that would be Parliament's "Mothership Connection". So sorry, but still a goovin vibe!

FAA still has both primary (skin) and secondary (transponder) radar.

The skin track may be digital video, but it is still generated from a real radar return. So it is not wrong to say the FAA is pretty much all digital, but digital does not mean no skin track capability.

Think about it this way, even if all of your long range stuff relies on a cooperative target (a transponder of some kind), you still need the ability to see a non cooperative target, such as rain, windshear, an aircraft that forgot to turn on the transponder, or an aircraft that has a failed transponder and is NORDO. So even though transponders are the primary mode these days (despite still being called secondary radars) it will be a long time before the FAA gives up the ability to do skin track.

With that said, FAA radars are not designed to work with very small RCS targets. When you design a radar you do so with a target set in mind, size, shape, speed, etc. You don't spend the effort, and associated cost, to build a system that is optimized to track a -10 or -20 dBsm target when the smallest aircraft you anticipate tracking is probably in excess of 0 dBsm, and most commercial aircraft will be well in excess of +10 dBsm.

It would not surprise me that even if they were specifically looking for drones with FAA skin radars they might have trouble seeing them. It is actually a tough target set to deal with. The skin return might be very low, with specific narrow angles of high return, the motion Doppler might be low, and the high Doppler portions of the aircraft, say the props with all their wide Doppler smearing, are generally made of low reflectivity materials.

T!

 

[AB4BF]

IMHO, the drone was probably a decoy to get the helicopter(s) to move away while the cartel drive 18 wheelers across the border carrying drugs and people.

I wonder why the BP didn't call the Air National Guard to assist?

 

[laidback]

Mount this item per bird: GAU-8 Avenger

 

[krokus]

FAA still has both primary (skin) and secondary (transponder) radar.

The skin track may be digital video, but it is still generated from a real radar return. So it is not wrong to say the FAA is pretty much all digital, but digital does not mean no skin track capability.

Think about it this way, even if all of your long range stuff relies on a cooperative target (a transponder of some kind), you still need the ability to see a non cooperative target, such as rain, windshear, an aircraft that forgot to turn on the transponder, or an aircraft that has a failed transponder and is NORDO. So even though transponders are the primary mode these days (despite still being called secondary radars) it will be a long time before the FAA gives up the ability to do skin track.

With that said, FAA radars are not designed to work with very small RCS targets. When you design a radar you do so with a target set in mind, size, shape, speed, etc. You don't spend the effort, and associated cost, to build a system that is optimized to track a -10 or -20 dBsm target when the smallest aircraft you anticipate tracking is probably in excess of 0 dBsm, and most commercial aircraft will be well in excess of +10 dBsm.

It would not surprise me that even if they were specifically looking for drones with FAA skin radars they might have trouble seeing them. It is actually a tough target set to deal with. The skin return might be very low, with specific narrow angles of high return, the motion Doppler might be low, and the high Doppler portions of the aircraft, say the props with all their wide Doppler smearing, are generally made of low reflectivity materials.

T!

Moving Target Indicator mode works well, to remove a lot of clutter.

 

[k7ng]

If I remember, a 6" diameter aluminum sphere (a standard item for testing of certain radars) was supposed to be about -14 dBsm and one of those certain radars could see the sphere at 24,000 yd, whereas the ATC radar would only see it out to about 6000 yd. One of the tasks I occasionally did was to launch one of those spheres beneath a 300-gram weather balloon. The local ATC would have to be notified of the balloon launch and sometimes would verify their radar performance with my target sphere.

So regardless of any augmentation systems in use, an ATC radar seeing a -20 dBsm object at more than a couple miles from the radar antenna would be a forlorn hope.
I have myself seen swarms of insects and flocks of birds on a PPI scope at fairly surprising distances, but not with the equivalent of an ATC radar. I note that birds and insects have very few metal components. But ATC radars are intended to get a skin echo off a Cessna 152 at 50 miles if the 152 will do the radar the favor of getting far enough out of ground clutter (MTI has its limitations too), but depending on the perspective, that 152 echo might be 50x (17 dB) or more larger than that supposed drone.

 

[Token]

If I remember, a 6" diameter aluminum sphere (a standard item for testing of certain radars) was supposed to be about -14 dBsm and one of those certain radars could see the sphere at 24,000 yd, whereas the ATC radar would only see it out to about 6000 yd. One of the tasks I occasionally did was to launch one of those spheres beneath a 300-gram weather balloon. The local ATC would have to be notified of the balloon launch and sometimes would verify their radar performance with my target sphere.

A 6" diameter sphere is about -17.4 dBsm, a 12" diameter sphere is about -11.4 dBsm.

Different radars have different abilities, and just grabbing an FAA radar at random, the ASR-11 radar is specified to track a 0 dBsm target at 55 nautical miles, 102 km. If the radar is performing to these specs we can see that it would track a 12" sphere at about 27 km and it would track a 6" sphere at about 13.5 km.

Other FAA radars would have shorter, and longer, ranges for the same targets, so your numbers look right'ish to me.

So regardless of any augmentation systems in use, an ATC radar seeing a -20 dBsm object at more than a couple miles from the radar antenna would be a forlorn hope.
I have myself seen swarms of insects and flocks of birds on a PPI scope at fairly surprising distances, but not with the equivalent of an ATC radar. I note that birds and insects have very few metal components. But ATC radars are intended to get a skin echo off a Cessna 152 at 50 miles if the 152 will do the radar the favor of getting far enough out of ground clutter (MTI has its limitations too), but depending on the perspective, that 152 echo might be 50x (17 dB) or more larger than that supposed drone.

Yes, it seems that the typical FAA radar would probably have a very narrow envelope where it might track such a small target.

T!

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Mount this item per bird: GAU-8 Avenger

yeah that would do it. Love the sound..

I wonder what the weight of a decent amount of rounds adds to the already 620 LBs of that gun? Then the added bracing required to keep it from breaking the airframe?

 

[k7ng]

Token, either you have a better memory than I do, or you have been involved with RCS measurements more recently than I, or both. I was working strictly from memory. Thanks for the kind corrections.

 

[krokus]

yeah that would do it. Love the sound..

I wonder what the weight of a decent amount of rounds adds to the already 620 LBs of that gun? Then the added bracing required to keep it from breaking the airframe?

Luckily, there is a proven support system for the weapon, and it is already deployed.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Luckily, there is a proven support system for the weapon, and it is already deployed.

I love the growl of an A-10 in the afternoon.

 

[bearcatrp]

I prefer napalm myself to drench the enemy. But the A10 is one bad arse plane!

 

[Token]

Token, either you have a better memory than I do, or you have been involved with RCS measurements more recently than I, or both. I was working strictly from memory. Thanks for the kind corrections.

Errr .... I have tracked a 12" sphere as recently as last week. I was working from memory also, but one tickled on a regular basis

T!