NORAD and how transponders work

[Cheap Shot]

Also remember that on 9/11 the fighters were only going to escort hiajcked aircraft according to FAA and military orders. Of course things change very fast.

 

[Edx]

This all makes sense to me! Thanks! If I think of anything before I get round to writing a reply I'll ask here again.

I knew a lot of this previously like Andrews not really being able to launch fighters that fast, but I just needed a few details filled in to make sure.

 

[Edx]

One question...

There's a quote I found here:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/NORAD-looking_outward

From Colonel Robert Marr:

NEADS primary job is to identify aircraft crossing over the Air Defense Zone (ADZ). The second part to this, according to Marr, is the "friendly by origin" issue within the ADZ. Anything that was beyond this military responsibility was "in the hands" of civilian authorities.

What does the bolded part mean?

 

[Dog Town]

One question...

There's a quote I found here:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/NORAD-looking_outward

From Colonel Robert Marr:





What does the bolded part mean?

Few seconds Googling gets many hits. I chose first two.

In addition, the US military is moving out to make significant changes in the way it acquires information about domestic air activity.

On Sept. 11, NORAD was unaware that a problem existed until the Federal Aviation Administration, the civilian agency in charge of US air traffic, notified the command. For some time, the FAA had been the lead agency for handling events of "air piracy." NORAD and the FAA had a cooperative arrangement that left control of domestic airspace in the hands of the FAA. Domestic airliners were considered "friendly by origin," said a NORAD spokesman.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/MagazineArchive/Pages/2002/February 2002/0202norad.aspx

Prior to the attacks on our Nation two and one half
years ago, our air defense posture was aligned to “look
outward” to counter external threats to North America.
We considered flights taking off within the U.S. and
Canada as “friendly by origin.” Our aerospace warning
and control missions were oriented and resourced to
detect and identify all air traffic entering North
American airspace. We were prepared to intercept
potentially threatening inbound aircraft as necessary.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/hearings/hearing12/eberhart_statement.pdf

 

[Sabretooth]

So how long would it take for Langley to scramble fighters?

He claims in his situation: "Tu-160 can cross the border going Mach 2. If the F-15s have to play catchup, they'll never make it to the bombers before they complete their mission."

He thinks that less than 10 minutes to intercept and its too late.

The "situation" is not as cut and dry as it's meant to sound.

The Tu-160 (which, BTW, is very similar variant of the American B1-B) has the ability to fire long-range nuclear cruise missiles. What does this mean? It means that scrambling fighters would be useless in that event. A cruise missile can be fired before NORAD could even identify the Tu-160 as a threat.

However, assuming the Tu-160 is carrying a conventional payload of bombs and is heading to a US target, scrambling fighters for an intercept is relatively quick. NORAD would have F-15's (or now F-22's) out to intercept before the target is a confirmed threat. Here's the thing though...there is no "catch up"...the situation would suggest the Tu-160 is inbound from the West toward the East coast of the US. The Eagle drivers would be heading East to intercept on a head-on course (read: no chasing involved). Instead, there is a closing speed of Mach 4+ (assuming the Tu-160 is going Mach 2...and Eagles can hit 2.5, IIRC). Unless the Russians start launching fighters and bombers from inside the US borders, the "chase" situation is not applicable.


ETA: Note to self, read whole thread before posting...I see this same thing has basically been said by others. Sorry for the repeating.

 

[alphahelix]

From what I can remember

Thanks for explaining this btw.

So what would happen in the situation of the "crop duster" pre-911?

On the airbase I was stationed on, for VFR that came in that was lost or disoriented we would attempt contact them (they usually contacted us) we would make up a transponder number on the fly approach would locate em and we would ask if they wished to file a IFR flight plan to the nearist civilian airport if they couldn't fly IFR (or didn't have a transponder and having the aircraft do a series of turns to identify it didn't work), we would have another aircraft visually locate the aircraft and escort them or point them in the right direction. Most of the time they just asked for the nearest Inflight frequency and a turn away from the ranges (we had live fire, tank and artillery ranges) They would thank us and be on their way (no harm no foul). If the aircraft was not responding we would send something out to get their attention (usually a flight of helo's that were intransit from one of the range area's) And after that when the pilot was finally able to contacted he/she was instructed to enter the VFR flight pattern and land at the station. In the event that radio contact was not possible (for any reason) we declared an emergency for the aircraft and had at least one aircraft keep up with it until it was no longer safely possible to do so, civilian authorites took up escort or it landed. I was discharded after 9/11 so I don't know anything about how it functions now and this is what I remeber from almost 10 years ago it might not be completely accurate

 

[Sabretooth]

One question...

There's a quote I found here:

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/NORAD-looking_outward

From Colonel Robert Marr:

The second part to this, according to Marr, is the "friendly by origin" issue within the ADZ.

What does the bolded part mean?

Simply, it's just where the plane is coming from. Pre-9/11, if the origin is a friendly country (England, Canada, Greenland, etc..), it's given the benefit of the doubt that they are probably not a threat to drop a bomb on a major city...

 

[Edx]

we would have another aircraft visually locate the aircraft and escort them or point them in the right direction.

...If the aircraft was not responding we would send something out to get their attention (usually a flight of helo's that were intransit from one of the range area's)

This is interesting, thanks!

I have probably an obvious question about the about point above though. I have often heard things like... "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart’s Learjet, in October 1999" ... what is the difference between what you did and what this refers to?




ps: thanks Dog Town and Sabretooth

 

[Edx]

Simply, it's just where the plane is coming from. Pre-9/11, if the origin is a friendly country (England, Canada, Greenland, etc..), it's given the benefit of the doubt that they are probably not a threat to drop a bomb on a major city...

Thats what I thought, thanks

 

[Sabretooth]

This is interesting, thanks!

I have probably an obvious question about the about point above though. I have often heard things like... "In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart’s Learjet, in October 1999" ... what is the difference between what you did and what this refers to?

None, really. The Learjet was off course and unresponsive. The F-16's sent to intercept did so to try and identify the issue. IIRC, nobody felt the Learjet was a threat...they just didn't know what the problem was. When the F-16 pilots reported that the windows of the Learjet were frosted over, everyone knew what that meant...

 

[Edx]

None, really. The Learjet was off course and unresponsive. The F-16's sent to intercept did so to try and identify the issue. IIRC, nobody felt the Learjet was a threat...they just didn't know what the problem was. When the F-16 pilots reported that the windows of the Learjet were frosted over, everyone knew what that meant...

The point is alphahelix seemed to suggest this has happened more than once (ie. that Payne Stewart's jet was not the only intercept).

So thats why I want to find out if he thinks that statement is incorrect but if it isn't, whats wrong about it?

 

[Reheat]

The point is alphahelix seemed to suggest this has happened more than once (ie. that Payne Stewart's jet was not the only intercept).

So thats why I want to find out if he thinks that statement is incorrect but if it isn't, whats wrong about it?

Again, you're confusing NORAD assets with "other than NORAD". Alphahelix isn't addressing anything at all to do with NORAD. He is talking about US Army helicopters addressing a local problem.

It is not uncommon that the FAA requests assistance from military aircraft for a variety of things. For example, for an aircraft obviously lost and with no radio contact the FAA might request another aircraft to observe the lost aircraft to attempt to establish identity or to simply try to determine what he's doing. The aircraft used are NOT NORAD assets.

I'm aware of an incident in which a Commercial Airliner could not extend the landing gear. The FAA requested a USAF aircraft to rejoin on the airliner and look under the aircraft in an attempt to determine what the problem was with the stuck landing gear. The USAF aircraft was not a NORAD aircraft, but was an fast jet trainer.

In the Payne Stewart incident a T-38 could have done the same job that the F-16's did. I guess the F-16's were handy and in an position to do what the FAA wanted. The F-16's were not NORAD assets, but were simply ANG aircraft on another mission until diverted by the FAA.

You need to understand that any aircraft if it's fast or slow enough (depending on what's required) can be used to perform these types of things. It does not need to be a NORAD asset.

FAA controllers know that all USAF/Navy/Marine pilots are trained in intercepts and formation flying, so if they need something of that nature they sometimes request assistance from an appropriate military aircraft as opposed to requesting assistance from NORAD.

NORAD's purpose is Air Defense and they do not and should not respond "willy nilly" to non threat situations when another aircraft will suffice.

 

[Edx]

Thanks again Reheat,

This makes sense and really simple I'm usually surprised why I don't think of these things before,

Even though I'm not a truther I can see how NORAD myths around 911 can be so easily generated.

EDIT: One further stupid question is could other military air units been useful on 911? Ive never seen anyone mention any other military division other than NORAD.

 

[Reheat]

The "situation" is not as cut and dry as it's meant to sound.

The Tu-160 (which, BTW, is very similar variant of the American B1-B) has the ability to fire long-range nuclear cruise missiles. What does this mean? It means that scrambling fighters would be useless in that event. A cruise missile can be fired before NORAD could even identify the Tu-160 as a threat.

However, assuming the Tu-160 is carrying a conventional payload of bombs and is heading to a US target, scrambling fighters for an intercept is relatively quick. NORAD would have F-15's (or now F-22's) out to intercept before the target is a confirmed threat. Here's the thing though...there is no "catch up"...the situation would suggest the Tu-160 is inbound from the West toward the East coast of the US. The Eagle drivers would be heading East to intercept on a head-on course (read: no chasing involved). Instead, there is a closing speed of Mach 4+ (assuming the Tu-160 is going Mach 2...and Eagles can hit 2.5, IIRC). Unless the Russians start launching fighters and bombers from inside the US borders, the "chase" situation is not applicable.


ETA: Note to self, read whole thread before posting...I see this same thing has basically been said by others. Sorry for the repeating.

If you'll read Gumboot's post carefully this whole scenario is unrealistic. An enemy of the US whether it be Russia (presumably not an enemy now) or another culprit is not very like to launch an attack with a single aircraft. It would most likely be a mass attack by multiple aircraft. There are other assets that would detect this, so there would likely be ample warning.

A single aircraft attack would most likely be a terrorists type attack and it's not likely they would have the ability to reach the US by air with a supersonic capable aircraft. That's precisely why the 9/11 attacks were so successful. It was a surprise using our own assets against us.

I'm sure the high level planners have and do continue to brain storm scenarios in order to anticipate the next attempt. They likely won't try the same thing again.

For the record: I don't believe any F-22 Raptors are assigned to the NORAD Air Defense mission. That still is purely an ANG function and the ANG (to my knowledge) has no Raptors. Those all belong to USAF units at present. Of course, those aircraft do have an Air-to-Air mission, but they belong to Air Combat Command, not NORAD and not ANG Units.

 

[Sabretooth]

If you'll read Gumboot's post carefully this whole scenario is unrealistic. An enemy of the US whether it be Russia (presumably not an enemy now) or another culprit is not very like to launch an attack with a single aircraft. It would most likely be a mass attack by multiple aircraft. There are other assets that would detect this, so there would likely be ample warning.

A single aircraft attack would most likely be a terrorists type attack and it's not likely they would have the ability to reach the US by air with a supersonic capable aircraft. That's precisely why the 9/11 attacks were so successful. It was a surprise using our own assets against us.

I'm sure the high level planners have and do continue to brain storm scenarios in order to anticipate the next attempt. They likely won't try the same thing again.

For the record: I don't believe any F-22 Raptors are assigned to the NORAD Air Defense mission. That still is purely an ANG function and the ANG (to my knowledge) has no Raptors. Those all belong to USAF units at present. Of course, those aircraft do have an Air-to-Air mission, but they belong to Air Combat Command, not NORAD and not ANG Units.

Right...but that's kind of what I meant to point out. The situation itself is not realistic...and even if it was, it didn't make sense and it wasn't feasible.

You're right about the F-22 not being an asset of ANG or NORAD, yet. I remember reading somewhere that many of the F-15's in service were being replaced by the F-22 and F-35 and I assumed it meant ANG as well...my bad.

 

[Reheat]

EDIT: One further stupid question is could other military air units been useful on 911? Ive never seen anyone mention any other military division other than NORAD.

Not really. The attack of 9/11 was over quite quickly before any non-alert aircraft could have responded.

Ideally, if an AWACS was on station anywhere above the US and more fighter units had been on alert something might have been done about AA 77 or UA 93 if it had not crashed. However, for the first two, nothing would have helped in the way of air assets. Remember, no one (except the terrorists) knew the first two aircraft were an attack until the second one hit.

Normal USAF/Navy aircraft are not on alert. While they may be fueled they are not armed. It takes hours, not minutes to arm a fighter depending on several variables.

You really need to reads the previous threads that were recommended earlier. All of this is discussed in those threads. I think the discussion in those threads will answer all of your questions....

 

[alphahelix]

The point is alphahelix seemed to suggest this has happened more than once (ie. that Payne Stewart's jet was not the only intercept).

So thats why I want to find out if he thinks that statement is incorrect but if it isn't, whats wrong about it?

I wasn't clear about the "not NORAD" part (sorry) but what I was trying to illustrate was if a controller sees a problem and can identify it (on military bases) the necessary steps are taken to identify the problem, and intercept if neccessary and since most of the scenarions was a lost joe blow its never taken as a serous threat

 

[Reheat]

You're right about the F-22 not being an asset of ANG or NORAD, yet. I remember reading somewhere that many of the F-15's in service were being replaced by the F-22 and F-35 and I assumed it meant ANG as well...my bad.

It's a logical assumption. However, I doubt the ANG will get any Raptors unless more are produced. That's up to Congress and with the budget/economic situation and the overall geopolitical environment that's not likely to happen.

Although certainly not the best aircraft the F-35 could perform the NORAD mission quite appropriately.

 

[ElMondoHummus]

This makes sense and really simple I'm usually surprised why I don't think of these things before...

You know, that's what's so deceptive about conspiracy myths. Back before I knew what was going on, I was presented with the "jet fuel can't burn hot enough to melt steel" one, and wouldn't you know it, instead of asking myself the obvious questions ("Who said the steel melted?", "who said jet fuel was the only thing burning?"), I bent over backwards to come up with reasonable scenarios to respond to that myth.

I've learned since then to question the very basis of a conspiracy peddler's argument, not just take it for granted on its own terms. From the very beginning, the lie is in the framing of the question, not in what it appears to be asking. More often than not, a statement by a conspiracy peddler is ostensibly logical, but it really hides a goal of steering a person in one direction.

At any rate, yes, that's how these myths get legs. And why direct answers sometimes are not enough to persuade the casual questioner of the basic dishonesty of the conspiracy mythology. For those who are not familiar with them, they don't see the larger framework of misrepresentation that goes into these overarching conspiracy myths.

Even though I'm not a truther I can see how NORAD myths around 911 can be so easily generated.

Same here. And on top of that, I can easily see how conspiracy peddlers can mislead people. Take the time period between the hijackings and the crashes:

We know that there were a lot of things going on between the ATCs and NEADS. But, if a truther frames the quesion like "Why did Flight 11 fly for 33 minutes without being intercepted?", "Why did Flight 77 stay in the air for 41 minutes without a response?", then I can see a person unfamiliar with the history get led astray. It would take 5 minutes just to sketch out the basics of what happened, and far far longer if questions pop up during the explanation. A truther can damage in 3 seconds of claims history that wuold take a quarter hour or more to set straight.

Which, as an aside, is a reason I don't feel that verbal debates would be good for rationalists in setting history straight. On another topic: All it takes is for a conspiracy peddler a couple of seconds to put a myth out there ("A group of researchers found traces of an incendiary called nanothermite in the dust residue of the World Trade Centers"), yet it would take how many minutes to point out all the misrepresentations, mistakes, etc., in the research? Sure, the chain of evidence can be brought up, but to a disinterested listener, that would sound like a technicality, not a fundamental problem. To firmly refute that myth, they'd have to explain the chemical mistakes as well as crib from Sunstealer's analysis of their spectroscopic misinterpretations. And it would get technical so quick you'd risk losing the listener.

At any rate, yeah, I feel for ya. I myself was flummoxed by a few of the more technical discussions regarding 9/11 myth. It was enough to make me look and look again at the foundations of my own conclusions, to make sure they were justified.

EDIT: One further stupid question is could other military air units been useful on 911? Ive never seen anyone mention any other military division other than NORAD.

I need to defer to Reheat, Beechnut, or Gumboot on that one. I simply don't know.

 

[Reheat]

As I've stated in other threads it is unrealistic to concentrate on Air Defense as the sole or even the primary method of preventing a 9/11 style attack. It should be a worst case/last resort type of approach. The obvious reason is that there would be tremendous loss of life both in the air and likely on the ground in an armed response from an Air Defense fighter even under the best circumstance.

The key is just what's being done via a multi layered approach to security. From better shared intelligence, inspections at airports a la TSA, to armed Air Marshalls, armed pilots, and informed passengers. I seriously doubt there will ever be another hijacking in that aware passengers will resolve the problem before some "neer do well" can commandeer an aircraft. These items I've mentioned are the desirable approach to prevention, not Air Defense.