"The signal needs to be of just the right strength to be partially reflected thus showing the WX. The snag is the weaker beam also suffers attenuation."
This is not true. All radar beams suffer attenuation. A stronger beam can make it through the precip when weaker beams may not. The radar processes the echo after the beam has been transmitted, so a stronger beam will always produce a stronger echo.
I said exactly the same, right up to that highlighted line. I can't agree with that.
Maybe this is a misunderstanding. What do you mean by 'stronger'? More amplitude?
What is being debated is frequency band. That's where the systems have changed notably.
If you have a land or ship borne system you may be able to produce enormous beam amplitude, but on an aircraft you don't have that luxury. Varying the frequency band varies beam penetration for a given power output/amplitude.
Radars also attempt to compensate for the attenuation (your mileage may vary).
but this is what boofhead detests. Raw data is best! For him.....
A mention has been made here of radar and super-cells. Super-cells are rotating thunderstorms that are unlikely at ITCZ latitudes - they are what produce most tornadoes, especially in the US midwest. Super-cells may have a bounded weak echo region (a rapid updraft with a weak radar echo). I don't think that's what's going on here.
I mentioned the ITCZ in West Africa. In relation to a severe incident/near accident caused by ancient WX radar. It was NASA who charecterised the CB as a super-cell in the incident report (based on WX sat data).
Having seen the aircraft after the event, and spoken with my colleagues, it was no ordinary CB. NASA commented that the flight probably only penetrated the outer edges before they turned/got spat out. They also speculated that further penetration would almost certainly have resulted in a breakup.
I have no opinion on the severity of the storm involved in the AK crash. We don't know.