View Full Version : Top This One For A Speeding Ticket
jetdawgg
08-11-09, 09:32 AM
http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f25575153%5fAGCzo0IAAQvDSoF8RAj28j 5jyNA&pid=2.2&fid=Inbox&inline=1
Two California Highway Patrol Officers were conducting speeding enforcement on I-15, just north of the Marine Corps Air Station at Miramar . One of the officers was using a hand held radar device to check speeding vehicles approaching the crest of a hill. The officers were suddenly surprised when the radar gun began reading 300 miles per hour. The officer attempted to reset the radar gun, but it would not reset and then turned off. Just then a deafening roar over the treetops revealed that the radar had in fact locked on to a USMC F/A-18 Hornet (Northrop Grumman aircraft)which was engaged in a low flying exercise near the location.
http://us.mg1.mail.yahoo.com/ya/download?mid=1%5f25575153%5fAGCzo0IAAQvDSoF8RAj28j 5jyNA&pid=2.3&fid=Inbox&inline=1
Back at the CHP Headquarters the Patrol Captain fired off a complaint to the USMC Base Commander. The reply came back in true USMC style:
Thank you for your letter. We can now complete the file on this incident.
You may be interested to know that the tactical computer in the Hornet had detected the presence of, and subsequently locked on to your hostile radar equipment and automatically sent a jamming signal back to it, which is why it shut down.
Furthermore, an Air-to-Ground missile aboard the fully armed aircraft had also automatically locked on to your equipment location.
Fortunately, the Marine Pilot flying the Hornet recognized the situation for what it was, quickly responded to the missile system alert status and was able to override the automated defense system before the missile was launched to destroy the hostile radar position.
The pilot also suggests you cover your mouths when cussing at them, since the video systems on these jets are very high tech.
Sergeant Johnson, the officer holding the radar gun, should get his dentist to check his left rear molar. It appears the filling is loose. Also, the snap is broken on his holster.
Thank you for your concern.
Semper Fi
ssgtblue
08-11-09, 12:52 PM
That is good...
ameriken
08-11-09, 12:53 PM
Not just good, that is absolutely awesome
StoneTheWeak
08-11-09, 05:35 PM
Owned. Love it.
that is amazing...i seem to remember hearing or reading that somewhere...
so being a noob Marine, I gotta ask...how likely is that situation?? Would a Hornets weapons system pick up a radar gun as a hostile radar device??
Sergeant M
08-11-09, 06:07 PM
I would assume. The tracking system for the radar guns are similar to those of the MANPADS. It's sensitive equipment, though I doubt the F-18 would have shot a missile, though that would have been cool.
0231Marine
08-12-09, 07:03 AM
I think the more unlikely part of the story isn't that the Jet locked onto the radar because that seems plausible. The issue would rather be the Police and their radar gun being able to clock something going 300 mph. I'm not certain but I don't believe their radar guns are made for that and likely wouldn't display a reading like that.
jetdawgg
08-12-09, 07:37 AM
The reply came back in true USMC style:
All Marines know how to respond properly:usmc::D
Banksta's and Gangsta's can't hang:usmc:
Marine84
08-12-09, 07:44 AM
Awesome!
markthorpe
08-12-09, 08:04 AM
Carry on
so being a noob Marine, I gotta ask...how likely is that situation??
It's not likely at all...everyone knows it didn't happen. It's just funny to read.
this was a chain mail email...
I think snopes debunked it....
it is a funny read though.
It's not likely at all...everyone knows it didn't happen. It's just funny to read.
I got that much Cpl...I was just wondering if the F/A 18 is that sensitive to civilian radar systems.
It would be hilarious if that really did happen...I think I'd be traumatized if I were the cop with the radar...I'd be afraid to ever shoot again! Like Cougar in Top Gun after the MIG locked on to him...just freeze up! lol
if a MIG locked onto an American fighter jet then the pilot sucks balls. our jets have always out performed migs... the only thing migs had was that they can fly straight up without stalling...
StoneTheWeak
08-12-09, 11:19 AM
if a MIG locked onto an American fighter jet then the pilot sucks balls. our jets have always out performed migs... the only thing migs had was that they can fly straight up without stalling...
Which we can now do with the F-22. Not a Marine Corps aircraft I know, but still the baddest fvcking thing that flies. The only thing that comes close is the Eurofighter Typhoon.
stoping the f-22 production is fine since we have close to 2,000 in service... more than enough to protect us from foriegn aircraft...
no....we have more like 140 F22s in service.
Might have over 2,000 F16s though.
Can you imagine how much 2,000 F22s would cost?!?! I'd probably be making under 500 bucks a month right now.
as of may 2009 it's 141... so yeah, I wonder where I got that number from?
could have been a type-o..... dyslexia??? I don't know.
StoneTheWeak
08-12-09, 11:38 AM
They wanted to produce a few more to make it 189 but congress knocked it down. Could have used it instead of ****ing money into the ospreys. Worthless **** cans...
if a MIG locked onto an American fighter jet then the pilot sucks balls. our jets have always out performed migs... the only thing migs had was that they can fly straight up without stalling...
I was talking about a movie SSgt...and wasn't the F-15 such a big hit when it first arrived in the 70s because it could actually accelerate in a vertical climb?
It broke a bunch of records for the fastest climb...30,000ft from a take off in less than 60 seconds I believe. Or was that the F-16?? I can't remember
They wanted to produce a few more to make it 189 but congress knocked it down. Could have used it instead of ****ing money into the ospreys. Worthless **** cans...
says you... those things rock... why don't you like them? and calling them worthless as a PFC just doesn't cut it.
StoneTheWeak
08-12-09, 07:44 PM
says you... those things rock... why don't you like them? and calling them worthless as a PFC just doesn't cut it.
Cause its because of them that my MOS is going away, I'm a 46 AVI Tech. Right now I work on a bird that isn't too complex, that thing is almost all AVI. Plus its not all that useful. It can't squeeze into small places like we can, and 53's can carry more. Sure its faster, but its payload is barely larger than ours. And it's taken how long to get the things working? So after spending over a year being trained to work on aircraft, they're just going to **** can what they spent money training me on, then send me BACK to school to work on something else, which will be about 5 months of training for the V-22's. Makes alot of sense right? The Osprey is already in Congress's sights anyhow, they're sick of allotting money for them cause it's taken this long to get them operational and they haven't seen anything to justify it. We've been screwing with them for like 20 years now and all we have to show for it is a bunch of crashes, and two, TWO cas-evacs.
Remind me, what's so great about these things again?
Yes, I'm a PFC, but not a retard.
Sergeant M
08-12-09, 07:50 PM
the MV-22s have their pro/cons just like any other aircraft. They definitely have a higher cruise speed/altitude/range than the frogs, but Stone is right about them having a lower mobility than the frogs. They have a footprint similar to that of a 53, but about half the payload. It's going to take some time before they become as useful as our other aircraft, but all aircraft have their testing time. Stone, should I remind you that the CH-46s were called "Flying Coffins" back in Vietnam?
StoneTheWeak
08-12-09, 08:08 PM
the MV-22s have their pro/cons just like any other aircraft. They definitely have a higher cruise speed/altitude/range than the frogs, but Stone is right about them having a lower mobility than the frogs. They have a footprint similar to that of a 53, but about half the payload. It's going to take some time before they become as useful as our other aircraft, but all aircraft have their testing time. Stone, should I remind you that the CH-46s were called "Flying Coffins" back in Vietnam?
I'd consider any helo a flying coffin. No real safe way to land them if the engines fail and no way to bail out either. That's why I fix them, not fly them. And if a pilot ever asks "It'll fly sir, but I won't tell you how it got to that point." (A common joke in the wing). Especially for phrogs. We have almost no money and parts are hard to come by. And proper procedure for wire repairs usually takes a sidestep on deployments to "whatever works". The benefit of being the Marine Corps bastard child. The 22's haven't proved much of anything yet. They might, but who knows. If they get rid of the 46's while I'm in and try and send me to work on 22's I'm going to try and get sent to intel or MSG, the last thing I want is more schooling in the wing.
when they first developed the helo they said it was a waste of money... dumped a lot into them for military use.
the reason this has taken 20 years is because the technology wasn't invented to safely have a tilt rotor aeroplane.
it's great really.... it's just new... eventually you'll love it. as for the money issue... well talk to congress about that, they're the ones behind the funding.
ronr418
08-12-09, 10:27 PM
Ooh Rah!
Zulu 36
08-12-09, 11:11 PM
This story is so old it has dino poop on it. I've heard variations of it since I started playing with traffic radar in 1973. Yeah, yeah, I've got dino poop on me too.
When I was first formally trained on speed radar (1976) we were told not to zap aircraft with the radar for two reasons: #1 - It might cause interference with the aircraft avionics, and #2 - Depending on the aircraft, their electronics might damage the speed radar (i.e., a military aircraft might have automatic electronic scrambling devices that would overload the speed radar).
The last time I attended a police radar school (1980s), the two reasons not to clock aircraft were still exactly the same.
There was never a fear of anti-radiation missiles being fired as speed radar does not have the right signature of anti-aircraft tracking radars (wrong frequencies and power too low), plus HARMs can only be manually launched by their pilots. HARMs are so fast, their rocket motors burn hotter and longer than most air launched missiles, so they can ruin the night vision of pilots. They are rarely launched without a coded radio warning by the shooter (night or day).
From 1973 until 1998, I never heard of a speed radar even being damaged because you know at least ONE cop tried to clock a fighter aircraft at least ONCE.
Well, probably more than one besides me. :angel:
GREY MATTER
08-13-09, 01:57 AM
It's not likely at all...everyone knows it didn't happen. It's just funny to read.
absolutely.
that would be one hell of a hand held radar gun to pick up an aircraft that is painted with radar absorbent paint