AC-130 Flares and Chaff

July 21, 2009 Uncinus 19 comments

Not a contrail, but a nice image:

A U.S. Air Force AC-130 Gunship aircraft executes an evasive maneuver and drops chaff and flares during a firepower demonstration at the Nevada Test and Training Range in Nevada on Sept. 14, 2007.

http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/newsphoto.aspx?newsphotoid=9540

I don’t know if you can actually see the chaff. I suspect that’s all just smoke from the flares. I suspect that when they are released simultaneously then it’s as a countermeasure for incoming missiles, and so will be very short-lived, a few seconds at most.

I’ve never actually seen a photo of modern chaff being dispensed. Is such at thing even possible to photograph? I’d be grateful if someone could point me at a photo of chaff.

contrails none

Comments

Leave a comment Trackback

Written by JazzRoc on July 21, 2009.

It truly IS a “chemtrail”. Now the jig’s up!
Written by Warlock on July 21, 2009.

No chaff that day… (i am pretty sure this is shot is from a firepower demo) rarely see chaff used stateside for many reasons… you don’t normally dump that many flares out at one time but it was the end of the fiscal year so units tend to get “showy” at the the FPDs
Written by Uncinus on July 21, 2009.

The image caption says it’s a firepower demo. Not sure what that means though. Why do you say there’s no chaff if the caption claims there is chaff?

http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/newsphoto.aspx?newsphotoid=9540
Written by JazzRoc on July 21, 2009.

Uncinus:

Why do you say there’s no chaff if the caption claims there is chaff?

Because chaff may be finely-divided, Uncinus, but it won’t be invisible, will it? (At least not until it has fallen some distance and its elements have separated from each other to a considerable degree?)
Every trail visible in the picture has a flare at the end of it, so these are infra-red missile decoy flares, for sure.
My understanding tells me that radar-decoying chaff would be released earlier in any battle scenario, as missiles employing radar are typically long-range devices (up to 30 miles).
Infra-red decoying flares would be deployed against infra-red missiles, which are typically close-up weapons (up to 3 miles).
Can YOU see any chaff anywhere?
Written by Uncinus on July 21, 2009.

No I don’t see chaff. I don’t think there is chaff there. But I’m VERY curious as to what chaff actually looks like when deployed without flares. I just can’t find a photo of this.

Chaff looks like this:

So I’m thinking it would be VERY hard to see almost immediately after deployment, which would explain why there are no photos of it.
Written by JazzRoc on July 21, 2009.

I think the “dots” here are chaff. But I’m not sure about it.
Written by JazzRoc on July 21, 2009.

There’s a flare here, but the rest may be chaff

http://www.planesandchoppers.com/picture/number3459.asp
Written by Uncinus on July 21, 2009.

Well, I think we can say fairly conclusively that whatever chaff deployment look like, it looks nothing like a persistent contrail.
Written by Kamran on July 25, 2009.

Hey Uncinus, there is a new History Channel program called “That’s Impossible.” One of the episodes is called “Weather Warfare” and it looks like they’re giving “chemtrail” conspiracy theorists a platform to air their views unchallenged. Have you already heard about it? From what I’ve seen it’s stuff you’ve gone over already, since the basic evidence and arguments of “chemtrail” proponents haven’t really changed.
Written by Uncinus on July 25, 2009.

Indeed, see new post:

http://contrailscience.com/history-channel-thats-impossible-weather-warfare-chemtrails/
Written by Richard Lefew on June 7, 2010.

Nice try at Debunking. You post a picture showing flares being deployed from an aircraft, which is an air to air missile defense system, and you imply that the persistent plumes of photoionizing particulate matter that is being spread out over our heads (at least here in California) day in and out can be explained as Chaff?…because you’ve shown us a picture of flares?

My house is in the foothills of Burbank, overlooking the San Fernando Valley & looking out my window right now I can see the results of the last 5 days of heavy particulate disbursal. There is a massive body of photo-ionizing particulate matter in aggregate with the air lofted over the entire city.

I grew up in this Valley during the height of the smog era. I remember smog alerts at school, when we were not permitted to play outside during recess because the air was unhealthful.

I remember trying to sleep at night and not being able to breath deeply because my lungs were sore from the air. One could not breath deeply during those days because of searing pain.

This particulate matter is clearly different. You may claim that what I’m seeing is smog or fog, but it’s clearly not. Smog is brown in color and caused by automobile pollution or industrial emissions. We no longer have any industry in Los Angeles, nor do we have any coal powerplants. The oil burning powerplants have mostly been converted to gas turbine. This white “haze” is clearly not brown smog. Smog used to leave brown residue on your skin. You could wipe it off at the end of the day with a white cloth and see it.

Fog is generally a morning condition in the San Fernando Valley, which burns off by mid morning. This white glowing particulate matter often times is less severe in the a.m. hours, becoming much more severe in the afternoon. This stuff appears on days where the humidity is extremely low (as compared with fog, which occurs only when humidity is VERY high).

Its very interesting to hearing scientists simultaneously emphatically deny the very existence of the very activity they are proposing as a solution to climate change. The San Diego convention on climate change featured the top geo engineering scientists. They gave long detailed dissertations of methods of mitigating climate change, with all the dire predictions for inaction. All the speakers seemed to rest their arguments on the same theme. The one thing that everyone took home from the convention was that aerosol spraying in the atmosphere was the best way to mitigate global warming, and that its possible to do with current technology, within the financial reach of our government & other governments, and even the world’s wealthiest individuals & charities. We also found out that not only is this ridiculously cheap, but it could be implemented within literally months, and most importantly that…IT’S NOT BEING UNDERTAKEN CURRENTLY, NOR HAS IT EVER BEEN TRIED.

At the end of the conference the most influential speaker David Keith mentioned that there has been NO STUDIES as to the human reaction to such programs, and that “we could find out tomorrow that it’s unhealthy, or worse”…yet Mr. Keith still thinks that regardless of human consequences, this “teraforming” should begin, without delay….oh yeah, and its NOT HAPPENING NOW, never mind the dramatic change in the condition of our sky.

Anyone who makes the argument that we are not being bombarded by some form of aerosol simply hasn’t looked up, or is actively prostyletizing on behalf of those that are doing the actual spraying. The group that is engaged in this operation honestly believes that if this project is not undertaken now, the earth will virtually self destruct within 20 years.
Written by Richard Lefew on June 7, 2010.

Why on earth has someone actually created a web-page on Contrail Science? For what purpose other than to debunk those who have caught on to the program of “Project Shield”.

Really, who funds this site? Is there really a segment of people who are interested in the condensation that is created by planes passing through the air?

Why not have a web-set about “Ice Freezing”, or “water pouring”, or something else as mundane. This site was set up to try to counter the public’s becoming aware that we’re being sprayed like bugs.
Written by Uncinus on June 7, 2010.

The flares were just a pretty picture, not really a contrail. Sorry for any confusion.

Interesting how you use Keith to confim your claims, yet dismiss his refutation of the same. How do you know when he’s telling the truth?

Can you quote some science to back up your claims?
Written by faithinscience on June 8, 2010.

“Is there really a segment of people who are interested in the condensation that is created by planes passing through the air?”

This site is about the love for aviation. Informing people that “chemtrails” don’t exist is protecting aviation against those who haven’t bothered to take the time to learn the facts and have, instead, decided to accept the “chemtrail” hoax as fact and spread lies about things they don’t understand.
Written by faithinscience on June 8, 2010.

Richard, I suggest you learn what aerosols are, and their sources. It’s interesting how some people see the word aerosol and automatically “believe” that they are being “sprayed”. Aerosols have been around since the beginning of time. PLEASE take the time to understand what they are.
Written by CC on August 19, 2010.

I find some of these conclusions suspect. For instance in this news report http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAFik80-DYM the weather man reports chaff not only causing “elongated” line patterns on his radar (what one may imagine from a “chemtrail” if they did exist) but also that said chaff is mylar strips (up to a foot long) and small glass fibers coated in metallic substances that are “dumped” by planes into the atmosphere.

Again this effect is observed here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_W7WETYoqA and here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1HgWZJAouQ causing elongated “bands” across the screen. No I am not saying chafftrails are chemtrails but could some one point me in the direction of a military document stating chaff is not to be seen or suppose to be seen from the ground, or whether or not this is even taken into consideration? To the best I can put together, chaff dispersal when it is being used to cause a disruption, particularly a large disruption of ground radar, enough material will be used to be seen from the ground.

If their objectives were to disrupt ground radar then it may have been deemed a necessary evil to allow visible trails from the sky. Certainly when chaff is being used to disrupt radar guided missiles it can be released in small enough amounts to remain unseen, however this is not chaff’s only application. So if anybody can help me in understanding these slight discrepancies, particularly this WWII era photo of a chaff cloud http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Window_-_Lancaster_Dropping_Window.jpg I would greatly appreciate it.
Written by Uncinus on August 19, 2010.

Chaff used to be quite large. The size of chaff is actually dictated by the wavelength of the radar used, as higher frequency radars are used then the chaff has to be smaller.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/1520-0426(2004)021%3C1017:PPOC%3E2.0.CO;2

See:

Chaff is made of aluminum-coated thin fibers and is released by the military to create widespread echoes and, thus, confuse noncooperating tracking radars. To maximize backscattering cross section, chaff length is chosen to equal one-half radar wavelength. As predominant wavelengths for military surveillance and tracking are 3, 5, and 10 cm, the standard chaff lengths are 1.5, 2.5, and 5 cm.

I think the best evidence that chaff is basically invisible is that that WWII photo you link to is the only photo of chaff I have ever seen. That was 27×2 cm, about 11″x1″.
Written by CC on August 19, 2010.

I will admit I am very much an amateur on this chaff issue, so would you happen to know, even if smaller parts had to be used, whether the amount of the material used would have to remain the same or not? Or I guess maybe a better way of putting it is to say “if at one time x weight of larger chaff was used to confuse radar, would that same x weight still have to be used with smaller chaff?”
Written by Uncinus on August 19, 2010.

I don’t know. I would strong suspect though that less weight would be required, as the surface area to weight ratio of the smaller chaff would be a lot larger.

Previous Post Next Post

Articles

Clouds of the World, 1972

Contrail Science

AC-130 Flares and Chaff

Comments

Leave a Comment

Articles

Links

Recent Comments

Meta