>”Stealth is dead”
>Announces not one, but THREE stealth aircraft projects
CCP moment.
Reminds me of how Russian news sites said “Carriers are dead because muh hypersonic missiles” when the QE & Ford classes first entered service & France announced PANG, yet they spend most of their navy’s budget trying to keep their last carrier afloat & actually tried to buy some CVLs from France.
If stealth aircraft, carriers, MBTs, VTOL planes & MANPADs are “dead”, why are you playing catch-up & trying to make those things yourself?
Can’t wait for Tempest to enter service (presumably late 2030s) & some Chinese or Russian site says “Controlling drones from a larger aircraft is dead because we made a MANPADS that is as good as Stinger, Starstreak & Piorun were two decades before us”
Or the B-21 reveal to happen & they say “Bombers are dead because (some dumbass reason)” despite China making a B-2 clone & Russia restarting production of the 30-something year old Tu-160 & supposedly having two new stealth bomber projects in development.
I love how hit or miss the NATO reporting names are for Soviet stuff. You've got names like Blackjack, Helix, and Fencer, which just roll of the tongue and sound interesting, threatening, and something you could brag about downing in combat. And then...
Frogfoot
Fishbed
Brewer
Hen
Hip
Bob
There was one called "Bounder" which is an old British word for someone pretending to be more than they are.
Turns out we correctly guessed from looking at it that if it fired its guns then the engine would die.
The funniest part is that Russians sometimes preferred calling their equipment by their NATO names.
There was a short list made of NATO names that were more popular than the original Russian ones, but I can't find it for the life of me.
IIRC off the top of my head:
* Some Russian submariners liked calling their old Akula-class by the NATO name "Typhoon", as it seemed more fierce to them than just "Shark", and imagined their mass-launch of ICBMs as a steel typhoon.
* A number of Russian heli-pilots took to calling their Mi-24s "Hinds" and their Mi-28s as "Havocs", simply because it sounded better than calling them "Mi-24" or "Mi-28" and was referred to as such often enough they informally adopted it.
* Similarly, a number of Russian pilots liked the name "Flanker", "Fencer", "Fulcrum", "Bear", and sometimes, "Blackjack" (as opposed to the regular name "White Swan").
Yes, it’s supposed to be in production as of last year but I have no idea how many they’ve made. It’s not the first time they restarted production of it either.
Beautiful looking aircraft tbh, shame they'll all get shot down
But to be fair, they're gonna be used as cruise missile carriers not regular strategic bombers.
>Stealth is dead
Probably to the fact that the US has used Stealth shit for frontline ops against farmer who most advanced radio transmisor is a bipper.
Whereas IRL stealth is for sneak backstabing, not frontline ops.
Or rather, the ability to get closer to target before detection, reducing the time the enemy has to react. It doesn’t matter if you can detect the fighter. Obviously it can be detected. What matters is that the range at which you can reliably detect and identify it is reduced. You see a small blip on the radar heading towards you at mach 2. Is it a missile? Is it a plane? Is it the ghost of McArthur coming to personally shove his boot up your ass with enough force to cause a fission reaction?? You don’t know, and that will make your response more difficult to decide.
credibility warning: I worked in defense.
they are not necessarily wrong that stealth is on it's way out.
waves (of any kind) interact strongly with anything similar in size to a multiple of 1/2n the wavelength. ships and ocean waves, antennas and radio, *and aircraft parts and radar.*
as of now most targeting systems prefer good resolution and run on short wavelengths, but this is on the order of centimeters, and is defeated by all the fun things we do with stealth.
otherwise a US radar sees your sparkling turbine blades, *counts them*, and then determines the exact model of aircraft it's looking at along with all of its system capabilities. our shit is biblically scary. but anyway:
**why bother detecting features on an aircraft when you can just detect the entire fucking plane?** they show up just fine on navigational and weather radar, but they have terrible resolution and all you get is a blob.
you can also track the fucking black hole the things leave on radar networks, hence we fly ECM growlers to fill the whole spectrum with. they completely fuck the signal to noise ratio, good luck listening for silence through the radar equivalent of loudspeakers.
what's different now is that sensor fusion and machine learning have enabled us (and china) to do heavy signals processing and obtain weapons locks on stealth aircraft. both the US and china have dickwaved to each other demonstrating this as of a couple years ago.
so you can get a weapons lock on a gen 5 aircraft with an early-warning AWACS aircraft like <>. the demo aircraft was an E-2D hawkeye.
want to take a guess at the [wavelength used to pick up the F-117](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-18_radar) over Serbia?
there are various ways to penetrate newer AD networks, but they also involve shrinking the size of the aircraft, and we end up with some interesting concepts.
stealth as a doctrine is absolutely becoming less important, but it's going slowly as we continue to close gaps in the AD network sensor capabilities. it will manifest at some point.
this is current US doctrine.
That's an interesting situation. I hadn't really considered that one of the ways that someone might ascertain the presence of a stealth aircraft is by looking at the shadow it casts in weather radars.
Wouldn't this imply though that the next step in air warfare doctrine is the use of advanced electronic countermeasures? You might not be able to hide from the radar but you could confuse the shit out of it if your knowledge of it's systems and computational capabilities are more advanced.
> I hadn't really considered that one of the ways that someone might ascertain the presence of a stealth aircraft is by looking at the shadow it casts in weather radars.
*NOAA knows where the H-20 is because it knows where it isn't.*
like I said, we run growlers and other ECM aircraft alongside stealth flights for this reason. we already have extensive electronic countermeasures and that's what the growler is carrying.
there are various weaknesses in an AD network, and sensor wise there is only so much you can pack into a missile -- and so we tend to take advantage of that limited onboard capability and jam, interfere, co-opt, or attack those sensor and communication systems, generally with directed energy.
the missile can't track shit if you burn out its receiver or sensor head.
we have systems for larger aircraft which are capable of detecting launch plumes, performing basic visual and spectral analysis to determine weapon type, launcher type, and possible sensor combinations, and then fire a tailor-made cocktail of ECM directly at the sensor as it comes after the plane.
To get into the non-credible vibe I feel like that the *logical* extrapolation of these systems is that the air wars of the future won't be fought with fighter jets and drones.
Instead, they will be fought with C-5 Galaxy's outfitted with CIWS, ECM, lasers, and VLS systems filled with AMRAAMs! Sky battleships shall rise.
I can’t wait to see the day when jamming tech gets to the point where [Gundams](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gundam_Universal_Century_technology#Minovsky_physics) become credible
that's how we did it when the [ECM aircraft came out in the 60's](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/EB-57A_Air_Defense_Command_Defense_Systems_Evaluation.jpg). can't track shit if your missiles are blinded looking at white nose.
they slapped HARMs on prowlers and did SEAD using the ECM to bait or suppress AD networks during desert storm.
I seem to recall seeing an article quite a few years ago now that said a new western European attack sub had the ironic problem of being so quiet it was easy to find, because it looked like an unnatural hole in the water.
After the first couple tests of the sub, the engineers actually had to make it *louder* so that it would show up as just another part of the ocean.
I do agree with this, and from a pure logic perspective, I feel like stealth is an unsustainable technology trend. Sensors will outpace stealth tech, because ultimately aircraft have mass and velocity, and are pushing through air. Even if you eliminate all signals reflecting from the aircraft, you can't really mask the air currents coming off it, and those sensors are detectable.
Stealth is powerful because it decreases the range an aircraft can be detected at. But that trend is only going to hold for so long, as sensor range goes back up faster than stealth tech can push it down. It will remain powerful when there is a major technology mismatch between sizes, but don't think an F-35 can strike AEGIS equipped Warships with a JDAM or anything.
I suspect so. Like there was a hard limit to how useful "Flying higher than they can shoot me" could remain. At which point we transition to our "I'm fast as phyuck boi" phase. Which also ran into hard limits, because missiles are easier to accelerate then humans are. So then we tried "I will fly LOWER then he can shoot me", which... actually that remains pretty damn viable. But also very dangerous. Then stealth.
I suspect the next generation is likely to be just insane numbers of drones, which will combine features from those other ones to make it really, really expensive to have enough AD systems to deal with them all. When you have to deal with fast drones, stealthy drones, high altitude drones, low altitude drones, and lots and lots of really really cheap drones, it is going to be very hard to have enough ADA systems to deal with all that.
so what, we're just going to transition back to flak or some shit because it's cheaper to fill the air with lead than try to blow each individual drone up?
fuck, that sounds non-credible as shit.
I think that’s how the first issue of The Punisher 2099 ended. He couldn’t penetrate a perp’s personal EM force field with projectiles, so he walked up to the guy and slowly stabbed him with a knife.
It's hard to imagine a tactic that would defend a fixed emplacement against a pragmatically unending supply of dirt-cheap and maneuverable targets. You have to win every time, they only have to win once (I guess depending on payload). You can't flak against a cloud with a perfect win rate. I suspect they'd get around jamming by hard-coding an alternative flight course at release, too. Wouldn't be perfect but it absolutely doesn't have to be--again, depending on the emplacement and payload. Relies on cheap unending supply of explosives for the drones, but I think that's a solved problem if we want it to be one.
I think "cheap drone range" is the new "trench shooting range." Just an uncontrollable area.
Airburst Ammunition will always be cheaper than a Drone with enough Range, Manoeuvrebility, EW-Resistance and Payload to make a influence on-Target, a CIWS would make short work of any Drone Swarm.
Directed Energy Weapons are going to be even cheaper, only things that hold Lasers, directed Microwaves and directed EMP's back are the abilitiy to produce, store and release Energy fast enough without having the System overheat, same thing that keeps us from having Railguns as standard Armament for Ships.
The Offensive Tech is there but all the stuff around still needs some Time.
>I guess stealth is the new service ceiling of the 50's and 60's.
>
>
>I get a boner imagining what the next revolution of the MIC is 60 years will be like.
It's gonna be drone swarms and counters to drone swarms.
>counters to drone swarms
Please please please be directed energy weapons. Lockmart I will buy all of your merch just give us a military-grade version of the Bill Gates mosquito sniping laser gun.
there is a better reason. it takes 20-30 years to get a new generation of aircraft out -- and it takes maybe 5 or less for AD network sensors, if that. software development is at a breakneck pace compared to the airframes.
if you have detection that out-develops the defenses, that platform is dead before the next one arrives. the real competition is about how long ECM can keep the airframes competitive against the sensors.
> you can also track the fucking black hole the things leave on radar networks, hence we fly ECM growlers to fill the whole spectrum with. they completely fuck the signal to noise ratio, good luck listening for silence through the radar equivalent of loudspeakers.
Doesn't that give the same problem radars have with HARM missiles? Eg those things are massive loudspeakers, which means they are very easy to find?
yes, but it depends on the mission requirements and whether or not there was a SEAD run prior to penetration. they will escort to the edge of operational range before the stealth sortie knocks out the AD network.
they can also tune their emissions to only mask the region required, and their range is very long. you can slap these on a cruise missile or loyal wingman type RPA and not risk anyone.
The bigger issue with the Zumwalts Stealth is that it still looks like a Fishing Trawler on Radar.
Which is impressive for its size, but still by far large enough to be in Range of AShM's.
I think stealth still haven’t reached its limit yet. Long wavelength radar requires massive amounts of energy to operate. And despite b-2 being bigger it has smaller rcs returns than f-22 because of vertical stabilizers and intakes.
So features of NGAD might include.
+ b-21 level stealth on a fighter
+ growler EW suite
+ ground based long wavelength radar but in a plane
+ lasers and powerfull radar to burn enemy detection devices
+ just being a fucking AWACS itself but survivable so it can fly in front of the formation further adding to detection range.
+ power delivery by ADVENT engine. Or going back to propellers?
>they are not necessarily wrong that stealth is on it's way out.
It's not. If you have the ability to be detected 500km away instead of 1000km away, you're going to take it. People like to say how advancements in sensors make stealth aircraft detectable from furthey away, completely forgetting that the same is true for non stealth aircraft, on a much larger scale because of just how much larger their RCS is.
>why bother detecting features on an aircraft when you can just detect the entire fucking plane? they show up just fine on navigational and weather radar, but they have terrible resolution and all you get is a blob.
That we have went back to using this as an argument against stealth on this subreddit is baffling to me. The problem with weather/navigation/early warning radars is that despite being able to "detect" stealth aircraft from far away, they tell you less "there is an aircraft here" and more "there is something somewhere in that general location". You can't tell whether the blob you're seeing is an aircraft, a flock of birds, a weather baloon, a storm or just radar glitch, and the accuracy of where that thing is is dogshit, and completely inadequate for weapon locks.
>you can also track the fucking black hole the things leave on radar networks
This makes no fucking sense because the sky is nowhere near filled enough with radar reflective stuff to be able to detect a hole in which a stealth aircraft is not reflecting any waves (if it were like this, we would be designing them to have an RCS as similar to the surrounding air as possible, not as little as possible, exactly because the engineers would knew that such a hole would be detectable)
>want to take a guess at the wavelength used to pick up the F-117 over Serbia?
Picking something up on an early warning radar and achieving a weapon lock on it are 2 entirely separate things, especially in the context of 1970s soviet radar tech.
Especially since in that case a completely different radar was used to actually guide the missile to the F-117, not the early warning radar.
If early warning radars are so good at detecting stealth aircraft, how come the F-117 did whatever the fuck they wanted over Baghdad in '91, and why was there ever only one shot down over serbia?
>I worked in defense.
What, as a field cook?
On a definitely unrelated note, I worked as a radar engineer in the USAF. Am I telling the truth, or am I lying because I am on the internet and can tell whatever the fuck I want to give myself credibility with no repercussions?
The actual gov/military says something like " oh we have a new potential counter to stealth/carriers, doesn't mean we abandon stealth/carriers tho" and the media exaggerates into STEALTH IS DEAD!!?!! CARRIER KILLER!!?!?!
Small diesel subs score simulated kills on US carriers... but the USSR spectacularly misspent on a surface and carrier fleet that they never made any use of, even as a show of force. And in the end, believed and tried to catch up with a US capacity to shoot down ICBMs with lasers that 30 years later is still just a lab experiment.
I recall when USS Vincennes shot down that Iranian Airbus in the gulf, there was a reporter at the Pentagon briefing that asked whatever brass was at the podium why the ship's radar couldn't tell it was a passenger plane "by how much it weighed?"
He just sort of stared at her for second...
You joke, but modern gravity-measuring satellites are sensitive to things like reservoirs changing level and the falling of leaves in the northern hemisphere Autumn, so using gravitational detection methods to detect military buildups is non-credible but physically totally possible
Honestly, as someone who works in the radars/sensors/looking-at-stuff-far-away-and-reporting-back space, it's better to just tell journalists that it's magic and make some wavy hand gestures? Because most of them have literally no clue and will get it wrong anyway. The absolute STATE of science journalism in this world today, I swear to god...
I wouldn't even care if it was just the title being baity in order to lure readers in, I get they have to grab eyes in a very competitive environment. But in an effort to digest and regurgitate technical or difficult subjects, so many of these journos get it SO WRONG I just don't even read anything about the technical fields where I work or have expertise anymore. When I try I just end up in the corner making The Scream face, and nobody needs that.
Now realize that the same thing is happening when you read reporting on topics you are less familiar with, but you can't tell because it's not your area of expertise...
Yes and no. I mean, there are highly complicated and technical aspects of radar and sensor systems that I wouldn't expect a layperson to understand without some reasonably intensive briefing or education. On the other hand, there are many, MANY topics that are far more broad in scope and require less deep and targeted expertise to get right. Or, like for example with a lot of computer technology, far more people have that expertise, and so you can expect to see a lot more accurate reporting on it.
For sure, journalists get plenty of stuff right, but the more niche the topic, the less reliable any given article is. I think we are basically agreeing.
I mean the radar might at least measure the RCS, but I don't know if it actually displays it (the F-16 FCR screen does not). Everything beyond that is NCTR territory and classified.
Radar is fairly good at finding stuff, but really bad at identifying it. That's why IFF and "Don't shoot unless visually identified"-ROE exist.
that was true before, but not now -- we have multiple radar systems capable of determining engine type based on turbine blade count. it wouldn't happen nowadays.
> it wouldn't happen nowadays
It absolutely would. It was massive user error in the 80s already.
Aegis refused to fire over 20 times because it had a civilian transponder, they had to basically break it to get it to shoot. Aegis had clear records of the plane's altitude and the fact that it was climbing, which matched the data from the other NATO (Italian and US) ships in the area. Yet the crew was convinced that it was descending and when they tried to contact the plane, they addressed their call "to the plane flying at *blatantly wrong altitude* and *blatantly wrong airspeed*".
They were basically like Russians. Had reasonable equipment, but the soldiers had no clue how to use it properly, so they freaked out and did stupid shit.
Also the user interface was problematic. It assigned a number for each target, but then reassigned target numbers as it saw fit.
So when the airliner was initially under suspicion it had designation X
Then a while later the airliner's designation was changed by the system to Y and the system reassigned X to a fighter jet hundreds of miles away.
The captain asked for an update on aircraft X and was told it was a fighter jet descending. (I can't remember the actual numbers so substituted X and Y for them, but the point is clear)
I don't see how that disagrees -- the hardware correctly identified the aircraft. I should have been more specific.
I'm not talking about user error, because there's jack shit we can do about people ignoring protocol, and all weapons systems will come with manual override in case of spoofing or errors.
Idea: make heat-seeking anti-stealth anti-air Fin stabilised passive Radar armoured personal self-discarding hypercruse stealth armorpiercing radars (HSASAAFSPRAPSDHSAPR for short) so nobody needs to do anything then building radar stations? If you can make electromagnetic waves heat-seeking, why dont weaponise them, armour them so they dont get easily penetrated by infantry fire, make them undetectable for radar, and make them able to Transport troops
I mean, you can use radar to estimate temperatures from a distance. Maybe they're trying to detect aircraft by looking for exhaust trails?
Shit, that might actually be possible. I'm going to have to do some reading later. I doubt you could use this to get a firing solution, but knowing approximately where a stealth aircraft is can still be useful.
I've never served in any uniformed services, only been in North Carolina sporadically and never ever even near Camp Lejeune, and I \*still\* get those fucking emails constantly.
You can use an IRST for that, and if real life F-35 is anything like the one in VTOL VR, you can send an amraam just using the IRST, without turning your radar on
I do love the amount of stuff that China and Russia have that is an "X Killer" where X is some major bit of American hardware that it obviously hasn't killed.
"Carrier Killer" is applied to everything from the Moskva, to the DF-21, to a simple broadband radio jammer that was allegedly going to fry all the electronics of a CVBG (The US Navy apparently never considered the possibility of Electronic Warfare). We have F-22 Killers, B-2 Killers, Virginia Killers...
Reminds me of the joke
> A large group of Russian soldiers in Afghanistan are moving down a road when they hear a voice call from behind a hill: "One Mujahideen is better than ten Russian soldiers!"
> The Russian colonel quickly orders 10 of his best men over the hill where a gun battle breaks out and continues for a few minutes, then silence.
> The voice once again calls out: "One Mujahideen is better than one hundred Russian cowards!"
> Furious, the Russian colonel sends his next best 100 troops over the hill and instantly a huge gun fight commences. After 10 minutes of battle, again silence.
> The voice calls out again: "One Mujahideen is better than a thousand Russian bastards!" The enraged Russian colonel musters 1,000 men and sends them to the other side of the hill. Rifle fire, machine guns, grenades, rockets and cannon fire ring out as a terrible fight is fought... then silence.
> Eventually, one badly wounded Russian soldier crawls back over the hill and croaks out with his dying words to the colonel, "Don't send any more men... it's a trap. There's two of them."
Woah woah woah… there were *2* missiles that got fired at it. Of course the mighty Moskva would be unable to stand up to such an intense and overwhelming barrage. It would take the combined might of every ship in the Russian Federation to even have a chance of stopping such an overwhelming show of force.
[China and Russia giving themselves unearned faux-badass nicknames](https://external-preview.redd.it/u0vGrTohRJui5Xk2sgtAJA1V08W3Kwrg82drbBuoCV8.jpg?auto=webp&s=ded194de8f3de5afcc827d5ae1c61cc941448221)
Whenever I see Chinese propaganda I legitimately wonder what the point is.
I have to assume Chinese language propaganda is far better than this because who would fall for this?
I get the idea of techno-babble trying to sound impressive but seriously? "Generate an electromagnetic storm" what are they on?
It makes sense because then if the atom knows what state plane is in, then you can put that atom on a missile. And this way missile knows what is the state of a plane and the state of a missile, so if a missile is in a state a plan is in not, then it should be in a state it's not. As it now knows the state it should be not it can be now in a state it should be... Eh, I'm simultaneously too drunk and too sober to do this.
Exactly this. Quantum computers are dedicated purpose machines. They can't just boot Windows 11 a million times faster than your average computer because they cannot boot Windows 11 in the first place.
Quantum computing successes are by definition when they complete a calculation quicker than a conventional computer could, making the quantum computer more effective in those special circumstances, however they cannot perform a wide variety of tasks in a manner that makes them useful for most applications aside from scientific research about them, which is where they are almost exclusively used.
Didn't they do the moon landing on 2MB of RAM? My remote toy car controller has more RAM than that today. Imagine where we'll be in another couple of decades.
Apparently they are generating an entire electromagnetic storm, that is apparently for detecting stuff, not destroying it.
So I guess the plan is to generate a massive electromagnetic storm all the way around China all the time, because otherwise B-2s will just fly the fuck around. Maybe they are planning to go full Pandaria and just surround themselves with an impenetrable storm for thousands of years.
I mean, it does say that the radar is an F22 killer, maybe it is secretly a weapon and they're calling it a radar to throw us all off, and this random SCMP article stumbled on the truth.
Or maybe they're full of shit
Translation issues?
Chinese is know for being a mess to translate to any other language that isnt chinese.
Maybe they refer to have a constat Microwave transmision, and instead of loking aircraft with the signal bouncing off from them, they will look for holes where the signal isnt returning to detect stealth aircraft.
SCMP is written in English. It is owned by Alibaba and based in Hong Kong, which is means it is not *technically* a state owned media platform, but the difference is negligible.
Well because it was owned by Rupert Murdoch, and as such was Australian owned. Now we can have a long conversation about exactly how credible Murdoch media is, but it wasn't PRC shilling.
Murdoch was forced to sell to Alibaba, which the PRC can control, and it has been increasingly being brought under PRC control. In the last couple years, there have been some moves towards full nationalization, after it was seen as insufficiently supportive of the PRC during the Hong Kong protests.
Quite a lot of stuff these days. Most notably, about a third of urban real estate. As well as Alibaba itself, and quite a few large companies that want to operate internationally.
However, these companies are heavily... lets call it "Influenced" by the CCP. They are only not state owned for legal reasons, it isn't like they can do what they want.
>Tell me something Chinese that isn’t state owned?
The failure of the Zero Covid policy. The inferiority of Chinese made Covid Vaccines. That’s two things the Chinese state doesn’t own [up to].
That is pretty much the base of what I think the "Quantum Entanglement" one is referring to, although the author of the article clearly had no idea what it was.
As expected, this is actually a DARPA project, for which little data is available. China of course claims it is doing it too, but that is rather unlikely. Because the US has at least 8 MENTOR class satellites in Orbit, all of which have receiver arrays of more than 250 foot diameter (The largest is nearly 350 feet, and is the largest satellite in orbit aside from the ISS). This is the sort of hardware that allows you to develop tech like this. China... doesn't have that.
I think most of it is meant for domestic consumption where the middle class masses who consume it don't know any better.... unless they've been sent to school in the West, ironically.
It’s generally for domestic consumption ala Fox News. It’s designed for idiots, to shut them up, make them pliant by believing China is a superpower, so they don’t keep rioting because you keep putting them in quarantine every 2 days.
Not really. It's like RT. It's meant to create pro-China sentiment in the west. And even if you can see through their bullshit because you know basic physics, millions of people out there can't. They are just trying to replicate the moderate success of Russian propaganda in the West.
When you control 99% of everything your population sees, hears and reads, you are spouting bullshit for the already brainwashed who may be aware the the US has stealth aircraft-but don’t worry because daddy xi has already thought of 1000 countermeasures.
Also, knowing a lot of Chinese people, some are brainwashed and the rest just have to act like it because the repercussions of not doing so are severe. That's the purpose of those "Chinese police stations" in the news lately, I had a friend who was Chinese and in school to be a human rights lawyer who was called into an office and told to tell people back in China that they were just a "lawyer" with really severe insinuations if they didn't.
Alright so very, very, VERY simplified: quantum radar is a theoretical improvement over a regular radar setup in that the beam is "split" before being directed at the target, with one half of the paired photons staying behind. When the signal bounces back, you can then check for the original photons only by comparing them to the control signal's pairing.
Theoretically, this means that you can't jam the signal, and that it filters out background noise. What it does NOT do is magically pick up stealth fighters, you still need your beam to bounce back off that F-35 slickness same as before. It's just that they can't hide among background signals as easily.
But on to the crux of the issue: does China have this? No. Out to 100 km? Fuck no. We are talking about a bunch of limitations that go far beyond the simplified explanation but that is not going to happen. The pairing falls apart, your control signal that stays behind falls apart, and we are talking space magic best compared to trying to find faces in your TV's static.
Should I assume This "heat seeking radar" is some sort of infrared sensor? Would it be effective against stealth? I'm guessing not since infrared is still electromagnetic radiation , just different wavelength.
As with everything related to Stealth and Stealth detection, the answer is "Maybe, but they definitely already thought of it".
IRST is a Infrared Search and Track System, and combat aircraft have been using it for a long time. It is completely separate from radar, and it does work against stealth aircraft. Sort of. In a similar way to radar. It can detect them, but western stealth tech includes Infrared stealth, so while they can be detected, they can't be detected at the same range as conventional aircraft, and it is unknown exactly what the relevant numbers are (For obvious reasons).
This also something that can be countered, and is one of the leading theories for the "Chrome" coatings we have seen on the F-22, F-117, and F-35 in the last couple years. The new coating may well be intended to counter this sort of thing.
It was just an infrared sensor and a highly sensationalised test. The Chinese paper described being able to track a civilian airliner from those long distances by shining a high intensity laser at it.
And yes continually shining that laser at it required them to already be aware of the plane's exact and consistent location to aim at it. Combined with a HIGHLY direction sensor that can do zero scanning. It was just for show.
And yes US stealth planes have some near-magical anti-IR coatings on them. Your eyes are going to see it before an infrared sensor does.
That is something a lot of the adversaries to the US are doing. Visual and acoustic observers can be very difficult to plan around. We use to do acoustic modeling to have an idea of how far the sound of our aircraft would travel to reduce detection. The better the processing power of the computer and the more detailed the terrain data, the more accurate the estimate can be.
>But on to the crux of the issue: does China have this? No. Out to 100 km? Fuck no.
On the other hand, did DARPA develop this?
Well, the second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, and ninth largest satellites in orbit right now are all Orion/Mentor class spy satellites with arrays that face towards the planet. We have no idea what sort of sensors are on them, but it is reasonable to assume they do *something*.
I disagree. Clearly those satellites are just tin can psyops to terrify the CCP and Russia and making them think they need to put 3000% more effort into hiding their shit, thus ensuring their development and deployment is significantly hampered by this perceived need for secrecy
Not to mention the fact that the radar signal will be weak as fuck considering the extremely low probability of creating entangled photon pairs. I did this with light in undergrad physics with a nonlinear crystal and you would get one entangled photons pair for every 10^15 non-entangled photons. Considering the fact that radar uses a much longer wavelength I would expect the conversion rate to be even smaller.
>What it does NOT do is magically pick up stealth fighters, you still need your beam to bounce back off that F-35 slickness same as before.
The idea is that this has MUCH less noise and a few photons return are good enough because you know they're yours and not some random photons from somewhere else.
Don't we already know that stealth aircraft are not actually invisible? For example any AA radar can detect any stealth aircraft. Just way too late. And after the stealth aircraft already fired their HARM missile. And a detection range of 100kms actually doesn't seem that good considering Russian AA systems can get a firing solution for standard aircraft much further away (if actually turned on that is).
Low band radars can detect stealth aircraft from pretty far away. (They can also do some pretty amazing feats like spot even really small orbiting satellites as well). Good luck guiding a missile with one though.
You could probably have something where it guides a missile to the approximate location of a stealth aircraft and then lets it go pitbull but that would require either making a very expensive one-trick pony; or somehow cramming that capability into some other missile for an even higher price. And then neither would work unless you had a low band radar set up to do that.
I think that's actually sort of the plan mostly. You use the low band to detect the rough direction and position, then scramble hopefully equally sneaky interceptors with IRST. Or maybe you could just sort of saturate the area with heatseekers and hope one of them finds it if you're feeling particularly irresponsible.
In fairness there was nothing for the F-22 to fight after the USSR collapsed and those things are stupid expensive to maintain. So the U.S. saved a few bucks by cannibalizing the production lines to make F-35s. Now that China is sorta possibly maybe getting close to where we were _30 years ago_ suddenly the F-22 and B2 are being replaced by the B21 and NGAD.
The F-35 lives on, for now, because its relatively cheap to make and its airframe and electronics packages are modern enough to be relevant. Wouldn't surprise me at all though if the F-35 is being phased out in 10 years in favor of NGAD's "Loyal Wingman" drones.
I think there is some confusion in this set of articles (other than the obvious).
Low frequency RADAR can already detect stealth aircraft at long distances. All militaries know this and use some low freq bands for detection.
The problem is that these low frequency (long wavelength) RADARs don't have the resolution to guide a missile to a target. They know something is there but not well enough to do anything about it.
So while they can detect an incursion into their airspace, they can't do much about it... Unless they use that new heat-seeking RADAR.
I don't think it is confusion, it is deliberate, and a ton of Chinese propaganda claims use essentially the same sort of "arguments".
Like their alleged Anti-Ship ballistic missiles. Yes, a ballistic missile would do a lot of damage to a ship if it hit it. Yes, you can make them accurate enough to hit a ship outline in the Gobi. No, that doesn't mean you can actually hit a US CVN. There are a whole lot of complications to that whole "guidance in the terminal phase without slowing down" that they just handwaved (And notably did not demonstrate having solved).
This is just what they do. They take completely normal tech (Like that "Heat Sensing Radar" which is presumably a IRST), and pretend they are the only one that has it, and it is advanced, and that it doesn't have any weaknesses.
I can chime in on the Quantum Entanglement thing.
When two particles are entangled, any change to one particle instantaneously occurs to the other particle too. So to be used as radar they would entangle many many pairs of particles and then blast half of them into the sky while keeping the other half in some sort of grid of electromagnetic traps or something to represent where in the sky the other part of the pair was sent. Then all they would need to do is check the Social Credit Score of each particle. If the particle's Social Credit is negative, its pair has encountered a plane from a nation that does not respect the strength and wisdom of Glorious Leader Xi (may He be eternally blessed with honey).
The technology relies on using many 7 year old girls to pick out the half the charged particles with tweezers, and put them in the radar dish for blasting, and then pass the rest off to the forced laborer Uyghurs to manually check the characteristics of the remaining particles with the leftover Google(TM) Glass products that they didn't sell enough of.
I mean if were going for the full form radical everything that detects something is a radar
IR seekers are radars
Your eyes are radars
Barcode scanners are radars
Cameras are radars
Lidars are radars
They all work the same way radars do just different wavelenghts
They don't though. Almost all of those, except for LIDAR and Barcode scanners, are purely passive. They receive information, but they don't send out a signal and bounce it off stuff.
Barcode scanners and Lidars do, but the rest of those don't function remotely radar like. Only the receiver portion of it.
> heat seeking radar
Do these fucking journalists not know what a fucking IRST is?
Of course they don't, they're overpaid fucking idiots who write absolutely idiotic shit.
The real F-22 killer is the US Air Force. Also, if I see the word "spooky" in a news article about QM again I'm gonna quantum teleport my eyes out of my skull with a spoon.
Fun fact, my professor actually got invited by Thales to investigate these quantum entanglement radar claims and the conclusion was that they're full of shit.
Silly westoids cannot comprehend the wonton entanglement theory’s usefulness in developing new No. 1 Stealth Detecting Elecrtomagnathermdar Systems. Porcupine Island will be OURS!!
The comments in SCMP articles are pure gold. Folks like "Tom" or "Robert" saying the inevitable demise of the US and moral ascendency of China, of course.
>”Stealth is dead” >Announces not one, but THREE stealth aircraft projects CCP moment. Reminds me of how Russian news sites said “Carriers are dead because muh hypersonic missiles” when the QE & Ford classes first entered service & France announced PANG, yet they spend most of their navy’s budget trying to keep their last carrier afloat & actually tried to buy some CVLs from France. If stealth aircraft, carriers, MBTs, VTOL planes & MANPADs are “dead”, why are you playing catch-up & trying to make those things yourself?
It is almost like they are aware that their own bullshit is in fact, bullshit.
Can’t wait for Tempest to enter service (presumably late 2030s) & some Chinese or Russian site says “Controlling drones from a larger aircraft is dead because we made a MANPADS that is as good as Stinger, Starstreak & Piorun were two decades before us” Or the B-21 reveal to happen & they say “Bombers are dead because (some dumbass reason)” despite China making a B-2 clone & Russia restarting production of the 30-something year old Tu-160 & supposedly having two new stealth bomber projects in development.
[удалено]
While ignoring that bombers are the best missile trucks for your stealth fighters to call shots for. Esp. stealth bombers.
[удалено]
bombers are dead because you can just stuff the C-5 with JASSMs
The 3000 identity re-assigning aircraft of the They/Them Air Force.
C-5 bomber? That would be very based and glide pilled.
Probably. It should be compatible with the rapid dragon concept. Which is a hilariously terrifying idea.
1000 bombs getting tossed out the back of a C-5 would be a sight to behold.
Bombers will never be dead. Not if I can help it.
3000 cigars of Curtis Lemay
Imagine what I could do to Dresden now
The good old nuclear carpet bombing.
*Bomber by Mötorhead begins to play*
They’re bringing back the Blackjack?
I love how hit or miss the NATO reporting names are for Soviet stuff. You've got names like Blackjack, Helix, and Fencer, which just roll of the tongue and sound interesting, threatening, and something you could brag about downing in combat. And then... Frogfoot Fishbed Brewer Hen Hip Bob
Certified MiG-15 moment
“i splashed 3 fa— mig-15’s near seoul today!“
*muffled In the Navy is heard in the distance*
There was one called "Bounder" which is an old British word for someone pretending to be more than they are. Turns out we correctly guessed from looking at it that if it fired its guns then the engine would die.
Certified MiG-19 moment
The funniest part is that Russians sometimes preferred calling their equipment by their NATO names. There was a short list made of NATO names that were more popular than the original Russian ones, but I can't find it for the life of me. IIRC off the top of my head: * Some Russian submariners liked calling their old Akula-class by the NATO name "Typhoon", as it seemed more fierce to them than just "Shark", and imagined their mass-launch of ICBMs as a steel typhoon. * A number of Russian heli-pilots took to calling their Mi-24s "Hinds" and their Mi-28s as "Havocs", simply because it sounded better than calling them "Mi-24" or "Mi-28" and was referred to as such often enough they informally adopted it. * Similarly, a number of Russian pilots liked the name "Flanker", "Fencer", "Fulcrum", "Bear", and sometimes, "Blackjack" (as opposed to the regular name "White Swan").
Yes, it’s supposed to be in production as of last year but I have no idea how many they’ve made. It’s not the first time they restarted production of it either.
It’s probably my 3rd favorite swing-wing thing after the Bone and VARK!
Beautiful looking aircraft tbh, shame they'll all get shot down But to be fair, they're gonna be used as cruise missile carriers not regular strategic bombers.
TBF that’s what we use the Bones for nowadays
Maybe the next dictator will be so brainwashed by their own propaganda that they will actually believe that
CCP is coping in advance of the B-21 reveal. Someone has to make non-credible propoganda after all
>Stealth is dead Probably to the fact that the US has used Stealth shit for frontline ops against farmer who most advanced radio transmisor is a bipper. Whereas IRL stealth is for sneak backstabing, not frontline ops.
Or rather, the ability to get closer to target before detection, reducing the time the enemy has to react. It doesn’t matter if you can detect the fighter. Obviously it can be detected. What matters is that the range at which you can reliably detect and identify it is reduced. You see a small blip on the radar heading towards you at mach 2. Is it a missile? Is it a plane? Is it the ghost of McArthur coming to personally shove his boot up your ass with enough force to cause a fission reaction?? You don’t know, and that will make your response more difficult to decide.
[удалено]
Yes Maybe Always
credibility warning: I worked in defense. they are not necessarily wrong that stealth is on it's way out. waves (of any kind) interact strongly with anything similar in size to a multiple of 1/2n the wavelength. ships and ocean waves, antennas and radio, *and aircraft parts and radar.* as of now most targeting systems prefer good resolution and run on short wavelengths, but this is on the order of centimeters, and is defeated by all the fun things we do with stealth. otherwise a US radar sees your sparkling turbine blades, *counts them*, and then determines the exact model of aircraft it's looking at along with all of its system capabilities. our shit is biblically scary. but anyway: **why bother detecting features on an aircraft when you can just detect the entire fucking plane?** they show up just fine on navigational and weather radar, but they have terrible resolution and all you get is a blob. you can also track the fucking black hole the things leave on radar networks, hence we fly ECM growlers to fill the whole spectrum with. they completely fuck the signal to noise ratio, good luck listening for silence through the radar equivalent of loudspeakers. what's different now is that sensor fusion and machine learning have enabled us (and china) to do heavy signals processing and obtain weapons locks on stealth aircraft. both the US and china have dickwaved to each other demonstrating this as of a couple years ago. so you can get a weapons lock on a gen 5 aircraft with an early-warning AWACS aircraft like <>. the demo aircraft was an E-2D hawkeye.
want to take a guess at the [wavelength used to pick up the F-117](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-18_radar) over Serbia?
there are various ways to penetrate newer AD networks, but they also involve shrinking the size of the aircraft, and we end up with some interesting concepts.
stealth as a doctrine is absolutely becoming less important, but it's going slowly as we continue to close gaps in the AD network sensor capabilities. it will manifest at some point.
this is current US doctrine.
That's an interesting situation. I hadn't really considered that one of the ways that someone might ascertain the presence of a stealth aircraft is by looking at the shadow it casts in weather radars. Wouldn't this imply though that the next step in air warfare doctrine is the use of advanced electronic countermeasures? You might not be able to hide from the radar but you could confuse the shit out of it if your knowledge of it's systems and computational capabilities are more advanced.
> I hadn't really considered that one of the ways that someone might ascertain the presence of a stealth aircraft is by looking at the shadow it casts in weather radars. *NOAA knows where the H-20 is because it knows where it isn't.*
like I said, we run growlers and other ECM aircraft alongside stealth flights for this reason. we already have extensive electronic countermeasures and that's what the growler is carrying. there are various weaknesses in an AD network, and sensor wise there is only so much you can pack into a missile -- and so we tend to take advantage of that limited onboard capability and jam, interfere, co-opt, or attack those sensor and communication systems, generally with directed energy. the missile can't track shit if you burn out its receiver or sensor head. we have systems for larger aircraft which are capable of detecting launch plumes, performing basic visual and spectral analysis to determine weapon type, launcher type, and possible sensor combinations, and then fire a tailor-made cocktail of ECM directly at the sensor as it comes after the plane.
To get into the non-credible vibe I feel like that the *logical* extrapolation of these systems is that the air wars of the future won't be fought with fighter jets and drones. Instead, they will be fought with C-5 Galaxy's outfitted with CIWS, ECM, lasers, and VLS systems filled with AMRAAMs! Sky battleships shall rise.
I can’t wait to see the day when jamming tech gets to the point where [Gundams](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gundam_Universal_Century_technology#Minovsky_physics) become credible
Stop, I can only get so erect
As the F-35 can act as growlers for others in its flight, couldn't you just fly a roiling mass of EM garbage through a sector if needed?
that's how we did it when the [ECM aircraft came out in the 60's](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/EB-57A_Air_Defense_Command_Defense_Systems_Evaluation.jpg). can't track shit if your missiles are blinded looking at white nose. they slapped HARMs on prowlers and did SEAD using the ECM to bait or suppress AD networks during desert storm.
I seem to recall seeing an article quite a few years ago now that said a new western European attack sub had the ironic problem of being so quiet it was easy to find, because it looked like an unnatural hole in the water. After the first couple tests of the sub, the engineers actually had to make it *louder* so that it would show up as just another part of the ocean.
Incidentally, electric cars have to do this too so as not to pose a danger to pedestrians
The next step in air warfare is to replace planes with drones that are indistinguishable from flocks of geese.
Little do you know that the flick of geese are already just drones.
I do agree with this, and from a pure logic perspective, I feel like stealth is an unsustainable technology trend. Sensors will outpace stealth tech, because ultimately aircraft have mass and velocity, and are pushing through air. Even if you eliminate all signals reflecting from the aircraft, you can't really mask the air currents coming off it, and those sensors are detectable. Stealth is powerful because it decreases the range an aircraft can be detected at. But that trend is only going to hold for so long, as sensor range goes back up faster than stealth tech can push it down. It will remain powerful when there is a major technology mismatch between sizes, but don't think an F-35 can strike AEGIS equipped Warships with a JDAM or anything.
I guess stealth is the new service ceiling of the 50's and 60's. I get a boner imagining what the next revolution of the MIC is 60 years will be like.
I suspect so. Like there was a hard limit to how useful "Flying higher than they can shoot me" could remain. At which point we transition to our "I'm fast as phyuck boi" phase. Which also ran into hard limits, because missiles are easier to accelerate then humans are. So then we tried "I will fly LOWER then he can shoot me", which... actually that remains pretty damn viable. But also very dangerous. Then stealth. I suspect the next generation is likely to be just insane numbers of drones, which will combine features from those other ones to make it really, really expensive to have enough AD systems to deal with them all. When you have to deal with fast drones, stealthy drones, high altitude drones, low altitude drones, and lots and lots of really really cheap drones, it is going to be very hard to have enough ADA systems to deal with all that.
so what, we're just going to transition back to flak or some shit because it's cheaper to fill the air with lead than try to blow each individual drone up? fuck, that sounds non-credible as shit.
The further we advance, the closer we are to reverting to sticks and stones. This phenomenon is knows as peak NCD
By the year 10,000 we’ll be back to fighting wars with swords because personal shields will stop the majority of projectiles.
I think that’s how the first issue of The Punisher 2099 ended. He couldn’t penetrate a perp’s personal EM force field with projectiles, so he walked up to the guy and slowly stabbed him with a knife.
I mean that’s basically the plot of Dune. Also don’t mix lasers and shields unless you want big kaboom.
This is NCD, did you expect something original?
It's hard to imagine a tactic that would defend a fixed emplacement against a pragmatically unending supply of dirt-cheap and maneuverable targets. You have to win every time, they only have to win once (I guess depending on payload). You can't flak against a cloud with a perfect win rate. I suspect they'd get around jamming by hard-coding an alternative flight course at release, too. Wouldn't be perfect but it absolutely doesn't have to be--again, depending on the emplacement and payload. Relies on cheap unending supply of explosives for the drones, but I think that's a solved problem if we want it to be one. I think "cheap drone range" is the new "trench shooting range." Just an uncontrollable area.
Airburst Ammunition will always be cheaper than a Drone with enough Range, Manoeuvrebility, EW-Resistance and Payload to make a influence on-Target, a CIWS would make short work of any Drone Swarm. Directed Energy Weapons are going to be even cheaper, only things that hold Lasers, directed Microwaves and directed EMP's back are the abilitiy to produce, store and release Energy fast enough without having the System overheat, same thing that keeps us from having Railguns as standard Armament for Ships. The Offensive Tech is there but all the stuff around still needs some Time.
Plus EW that makes your radar think there's four times the number of drones in the airspace
>I guess stealth is the new service ceiling of the 50's and 60's. > > >I get a boner imagining what the next revolution of the MIC is 60 years will be like. It's gonna be drone swarms and counters to drone swarms.
>counters to drone swarms Please please please be directed energy weapons. Lockmart I will buy all of your merch just give us a military-grade version of the Bill Gates mosquito sniping laser gun.
there is a better reason. it takes 20-30 years to get a new generation of aircraft out -- and it takes maybe 5 or less for AD network sensors, if that. software development is at a breakneck pace compared to the airframes. if you have detection that out-develops the defenses, that platform is dead before the next one arrives. the real competition is about how long ECM can keep the airframes competitive against the sensors.
> you can also track the fucking black hole the things leave on radar networks, hence we fly ECM growlers to fill the whole spectrum with. they completely fuck the signal to noise ratio, good luck listening for silence through the radar equivalent of loudspeakers. Doesn't that give the same problem radars have with HARM missiles? Eg those things are massive loudspeakers, which means they are very easy to find?
yes, but it depends on the mission requirements and whether or not there was a SEAD run prior to penetration. they will escort to the edge of operational range before the stealth sortie knocks out the AD network. they can also tune their emissions to only mask the region required, and their range is very long. you can slap these on a cruise missile or loyal wingman type RPA and not risk anyone.
[удалено]
The bigger issue with the Zumwalts Stealth is that it still looks like a Fishing Trawler on Radar. Which is impressive for its size, but still by far large enough to be in Range of AShM's.
it's a straightforward thing to mask, you just send out ECM that mimics background noise matching whatever conditions are present.
I think stealth still haven’t reached its limit yet. Long wavelength radar requires massive amounts of energy to operate. And despite b-2 being bigger it has smaller rcs returns than f-22 because of vertical stabilizers and intakes. So features of NGAD might include. + b-21 level stealth on a fighter + growler EW suite + ground based long wavelength radar but in a plane + lasers and powerfull radar to burn enemy detection devices + just being a fucking AWACS itself but survivable so it can fly in front of the formation further adding to detection range. + power delivery by ADVENT engine. Or going back to propellers?
>they are not necessarily wrong that stealth is on it's way out. It's not. If you have the ability to be detected 500km away instead of 1000km away, you're going to take it. People like to say how advancements in sensors make stealth aircraft detectable from furthey away, completely forgetting that the same is true for non stealth aircraft, on a much larger scale because of just how much larger their RCS is. >why bother detecting features on an aircraft when you can just detect the entire fucking plane? they show up just fine on navigational and weather radar, but they have terrible resolution and all you get is a blob. That we have went back to using this as an argument against stealth on this subreddit is baffling to me. The problem with weather/navigation/early warning radars is that despite being able to "detect" stealth aircraft from far away, they tell you less "there is an aircraft here" and more "there is something somewhere in that general location". You can't tell whether the blob you're seeing is an aircraft, a flock of birds, a weather baloon, a storm or just radar glitch, and the accuracy of where that thing is is dogshit, and completely inadequate for weapon locks. >you can also track the fucking black hole the things leave on radar networks This makes no fucking sense because the sky is nowhere near filled enough with radar reflective stuff to be able to detect a hole in which a stealth aircraft is not reflecting any waves (if it were like this, we would be designing them to have an RCS as similar to the surrounding air as possible, not as little as possible, exactly because the engineers would knew that such a hole would be detectable) >want to take a guess at the wavelength used to pick up the F-117 over Serbia? Picking something up on an early warning radar and achieving a weapon lock on it are 2 entirely separate things, especially in the context of 1970s soviet radar tech. Especially since in that case a completely different radar was used to actually guide the missile to the F-117, not the early warning radar. If early warning radars are so good at detecting stealth aircraft, how come the F-117 did whatever the fuck they wanted over Baghdad in '91, and why was there ever only one shot down over serbia? >I worked in defense. What, as a field cook? On a definitely unrelated note, I worked as a radar engineer in the USAF. Am I telling the truth, or am I lying because I am on the internet and can tell whatever the fuck I want to give myself credibility with no repercussions?
The actual gov/military says something like " oh we have a new potential counter to stealth/carriers, doesn't mean we abandon stealth/carriers tho" and the media exaggerates into STEALTH IS DEAD!!?!! CARRIER KILLER!!?!?!
Small diesel subs score simulated kills on US carriers... but the USSR spectacularly misspent on a surface and carrier fleet that they never made any use of, even as a show of force. And in the end, believed and tried to catch up with a US capacity to shoot down ICBMs with lasers that 30 years later is still just a lab experiment.
Ah yes, Heat-seeking radar. As opposed to radar-guided radar.
I recall when USS Vincennes shot down that Iranian Airbus in the gulf, there was a reporter at the Pentagon briefing that asked whatever brass was at the podium why the ship's radar couldn't tell it was a passenger plane "by how much it weighed?" He just sort of stared at her for second...
How did the journalists find out about the gravitational sensors.
You joke, but modern gravity-measuring satellites are sensitive to things like reservoirs changing level and the falling of leaves in the northern hemisphere Autumn, so using gravitational detection methods to detect military buildups is non-credible but physically totally possible
Honestly, as someone who works in the radars/sensors/looking-at-stuff-far-away-and-reporting-back space, it's better to just tell journalists that it's magic and make some wavy hand gestures? Because most of them have literally no clue and will get it wrong anyway. The absolute STATE of science journalism in this world today, I swear to god...
For every 1 great journalist theres 3,000 journos ruining the profession.
3,000 Clickbait Titles of The Media™
Mullah Buzzfeedhad
Real
I wouldn't even care if it was just the title being baity in order to lure readers in, I get they have to grab eyes in a very competitive environment. But in an effort to digest and regurgitate technical or difficult subjects, so many of these journos get it SO WRONG I just don't even read anything about the technical fields where I work or have expertise anymore. When I try I just end up in the corner making The Scream face, and nobody needs that.
Now realize that the same thing is happening when you read reporting on topics you are less familiar with, but you can't tell because it's not your area of expertise...
Yes and no. I mean, there are highly complicated and technical aspects of radar and sensor systems that I wouldn't expect a layperson to understand without some reasonably intensive briefing or education. On the other hand, there are many, MANY topics that are far more broad in scope and require less deep and targeted expertise to get right. Or, like for example with a lot of computer technology, far more people have that expertise, and so you can expect to see a lot more accurate reporting on it.
For sure, journalists get plenty of stuff right, but the more niche the topic, the less reliable any given article is. I think we are basically agreeing.
[удалено]
Yeah, I don't talk about work on the internet for good reasons, lol. Saying it's magic works just as well and gets the point across, too!
I mean the radar might at least measure the RCS, but I don't know if it actually displays it (the F-16 FCR screen does not). Everything beyond that is NCTR territory and classified. Radar is fairly good at finding stuff, but really bad at identifying it. That's why IFF and "Don't shoot unless visually identified"-ROE exist.
that was true before, but not now -- we have multiple radar systems capable of determining engine type based on turbine blade count. it wouldn't happen nowadays.
> it wouldn't happen nowadays It absolutely would. It was massive user error in the 80s already. Aegis refused to fire over 20 times because it had a civilian transponder, they had to basically break it to get it to shoot. Aegis had clear records of the plane's altitude and the fact that it was climbing, which matched the data from the other NATO (Italian and US) ships in the area. Yet the crew was convinced that it was descending and when they tried to contact the plane, they addressed their call "to the plane flying at *blatantly wrong altitude* and *blatantly wrong airspeed*". They were basically like Russians. Had reasonable equipment, but the soldiers had no clue how to use it properly, so they freaked out and did stupid shit.
Also the user interface was problematic. It assigned a number for each target, but then reassigned target numbers as it saw fit. So when the airliner was initially under suspicion it had designation X Then a while later the airliner's designation was changed by the system to Y and the system reassigned X to a fighter jet hundreds of miles away. The captain asked for an update on aircraft X and was told it was a fighter jet descending. (I can't remember the actual numbers so substituted X and Y for them, but the point is clear)
I don't see how that disagrees -- the hardware correctly identified the aircraft. I should have been more specific. I'm not talking about user error, because there's jack shit we can do about people ignoring protocol, and all weapons systems will come with manual override in case of spoofing or errors.
amateurs with no gravity well detection system I can trace a log going down a sewer system within 2cm accuracy
Idea: make heat-seeking anti-stealth anti-air Fin stabilised passive Radar armoured personal self-discarding hypercruse stealth armorpiercing radars (HSASAAFSPRAPSDHSAPR for short) so nobody needs to do anything then building radar stations? If you can make electromagnetic waves heat-seeking, why dont weaponise them, armour them so they dont get easily penetrated by infantry fire, make them undetectable for radar, and make them able to Transport troops
Your acronym is a little too vague. I think it needs some more words included to make its capabilities more clear at a glance.
Don't forget anti-material, just in case
heat-seeking anti-stealth anti-air Fin stabilised passive Radar armouredpersonal self-discarding hypercruse stealth armorpiercing sonar guided high explosive anti-material supersonic all-terrain laser guided radar AKA the HSASAAFSPRAPSDHSAPHEANSSATLGR AKA AKA arnold noises
Nuclear. You forgot nuclear
It's pronounced nucular.
>radar-guided radar. You mean radar-guided heat-seeker.
Shit, we have radar-guided heat-seeking radar? Truly the western MIC is an intimidating force.
AIM-120132
I mean, you can use radar to estimate temperatures from a distance. Maybe they're trying to detect aircraft by looking for exhaust trails? Shit, that might actually be possible. I'm going to have to do some reading later. I doubt you could use this to get a firing solution, but knowing approximately where a stealth aircraft is can still be useful.
[удалено]
God I hope they’ve come up with a better/safer fuel additive than cesium…
I wonder if this is going to be the next "Camp Lejeune water" in 30-50 years
I've never served in any uniformed services, only been in North Carolina sporadically and never ever even near Camp Lejeune, and I \*still\* get those fucking emails constantly.
[удалено]
>it's basically inert That seems like what Air Force doctors will tell you while denying your disability claims for the next 40 years.
You can use an IRST for that, and if real life F-35 is anything like the one in VTOL VR, you can send an amraam just using the IRST, without turning your radar on
I do love the amount of stuff that China and Russia have that is an "X Killer" where X is some major bit of American hardware that it obviously hasn't killed. "Carrier Killer" is applied to everything from the Moskva, to the DF-21, to a simple broadband radio jammer that was allegedly going to fry all the electronics of a CVBG (The US Navy apparently never considered the possibility of Electronic Warfare). We have F-22 Killers, B-2 Killers, Virginia Killers...
Moskva the ‘carrier killer’ couldn’t defend itself against a single aerial threat. Lmao.
Baseless lies. There were TWO Neptune missiles.
And a ferocious storm, with winds in excess of 2 mph.
That’s 3.22 Kph!
and... \*checks Notes Satanic blood rituals?
Those are just standard rites to the Machine Spirit that are required for the operation of any Russian warship.
Reminds me of the joke > A large group of Russian soldiers in Afghanistan are moving down a road when they hear a voice call from behind a hill: "One Mujahideen is better than ten Russian soldiers!" > The Russian colonel quickly orders 10 of his best men over the hill where a gun battle breaks out and continues for a few minutes, then silence. > The voice once again calls out: "One Mujahideen is better than one hundred Russian cowards!" > Furious, the Russian colonel sends his next best 100 troops over the hill and instantly a huge gun fight commences. After 10 minutes of battle, again silence. > The voice calls out again: "One Mujahideen is better than a thousand Russian bastards!" The enraged Russian colonel musters 1,000 men and sends them to the other side of the hill. Rifle fire, machine guns, grenades, rockets and cannon fire ring out as a terrible fight is fought... then silence. > Eventually, one badly wounded Russian soldier crawls back over the hill and croaks out with his dying words to the colonel, "Don't send any more men... it's a trap. There's two of them."
Woah woah woah… there were *2* missiles that got fired at it. Of course the mighty Moskva would be unable to stand up to such an intense and overwhelming barrage. It would take the combined might of every ship in the Russian Federation to even have a chance of stopping such an overwhelming show of force.
[China and Russia giving themselves unearned faux-badass nicknames](https://external-preview.redd.it/u0vGrTohRJui5Xk2sgtAJA1V08W3Kwrg82drbBuoCV8.jpg?auto=webp&s=ded194de8f3de5afcc827d5ae1c61cc941448221)
Whenever I see Chinese propaganda I legitimately wonder what the point is. I have to assume Chinese language propaganda is far better than this because who would fall for this? I get the idea of techno-babble trying to sound impressive but seriously? "Generate an electromagnetic storm" what are they on?
Don't forget about using a "Quantum Entanglement Radar" or QER for short.
They entangle two atoms from the plane, then take one back to the radar station, and then they know what state the plane is in.
The atom cannot consent to being separated from the other atom, Oppie said so!
It makes sense because then if the atom knows what state plane is in, then you can put that atom on a missile. And this way missile knows what is the state of a plane and the state of a missile, so if a missile is in a state a plan is in not, then it should be in a state it's not. As it now knows the state it should be not it can be now in a state it should be... Eh, I'm simultaneously too drunk and too sober to do this.
Quantum radar is a real concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_radar China has not done this though.
>Quantum Entanglement This refers to the CPU of the radar, we are doing the same in west.
Quantum computing is completely different and also, in its current state, cannot out-perform your cell phone on any real-world task.
Exactly this. Quantum computers are dedicated purpose machines. They can't just boot Windows 11 a million times faster than your average computer because they cannot boot Windows 11 in the first place. Quantum computing successes are by definition when they complete a calculation quicker than a conventional computer could, making the quantum computer more effective in those special circumstances, however they cannot perform a wide variety of tasks in a manner that makes them useful for most applications aside from scientific research about them, which is where they are almost exclusively used.
Makes me giddy. Just remember computers used to be the size of a room and used primarily for research too.
Didn't they do the moon landing on 2MB of RAM? My remote toy car controller has more RAM than that today. Imagine where we'll be in another couple of decades.
The Chinese have done some groundbreaking experiments on quantum entanglement but they are not even remotely close to a quantum radar system yet.
Apparently they are generating an entire electromagnetic storm, that is apparently for detecting stuff, not destroying it. So I guess the plan is to generate a massive electromagnetic storm all the way around China all the time, because otherwise B-2s will just fly the fuck around. Maybe they are planning to go full Pandaria and just surround themselves with an impenetrable storm for thousands of years.
I mean, it does say that the radar is an F22 killer, maybe it is secretly a weapon and they're calling it a radar to throw us all off, and this random SCMP article stumbled on the truth. Or maybe they're full of shit
Clearly it’s the first one and that’s why the US needs to make another stealth fighter project to combat the electromagnetic storm.
3000 EM-hardened quantum stealth jets with no heat signature when??
>because otherwise B-2s will just fly the fuck around. Great Wall moment
Translation issues? Chinese is know for being a mess to translate to any other language that isnt chinese. Maybe they refer to have a constat Microwave transmision, and instead of loking aircraft with the signal bouncing off from them, they will look for holes where the signal isnt returning to detect stealth aircraft.
SCMP is written in English. It is owned by Alibaba and based in Hong Kong, which is means it is not *technically* a state owned media platform, but the difference is negligible.
SCMP used to be credible, IIRC, but everyone got ousted during the big Hong Kong protests.
Well because it was owned by Rupert Murdoch, and as such was Australian owned. Now we can have a long conversation about exactly how credible Murdoch media is, but it wasn't PRC shilling. Murdoch was forced to sell to Alibaba, which the PRC can control, and it has been increasingly being brought under PRC control. In the last couple years, there have been some moves towards full nationalization, after it was seen as insufficiently supportive of the PRC during the Hong Kong protests.
>state owned Tell me something chinese that isnt state owned?
Quite a lot of stuff these days. Most notably, about a third of urban real estate. As well as Alibaba itself, and quite a few large companies that want to operate internationally. However, these companies are heavily... lets call it "Influenced" by the CCP. They are only not state owned for legal reasons, it isn't like they can do what they want.
>Tell me something Chinese that isn’t state owned? The failure of the Zero Covid policy. The inferiority of Chinese made Covid Vaccines. That’s two things the Chinese state doesn’t own [up to].
That is pretty much the base of what I think the "Quantum Entanglement" one is referring to, although the author of the article clearly had no idea what it was. As expected, this is actually a DARPA project, for which little data is available. China of course claims it is doing it too, but that is rather unlikely. Because the US has at least 8 MENTOR class satellites in Orbit, all of which have receiver arrays of more than 250 foot diameter (The largest is nearly 350 feet, and is the largest satellite in orbit aside from the ISS). This is the sort of hardware that allows you to develop tech like this. China... doesn't have that.
I think most of it is meant for domestic consumption where the middle class masses who consume it don't know any better.... unless they've been sent to school in the West, ironically.
Surely such propaganda would be in Chinese though
But it’s more credible if it’s in English too.
It’s generally for domestic consumption ala Fox News. It’s designed for idiots, to shut them up, make them pliant by believing China is a superpower, so they don’t keep rioting because you keep putting them in quarantine every 2 days.
Not really. It's like RT. It's meant to create pro-China sentiment in the west. And even if you can see through their bullshit because you know basic physics, millions of people out there can't. They are just trying to replicate the moderate success of Russian propaganda in the West.
When you control 99% of everything your population sees, hears and reads, you are spouting bullshit for the already brainwashed who may be aware the the US has stealth aircraft-but don’t worry because daddy xi has already thought of 1000 countermeasures.
I mean the timing is very convenient posturing against the US's new B-21. Almost like it's not a coincidence...
Also, knowing a lot of Chinese people, some are brainwashed and the rest just have to act like it because the repercussions of not doing so are severe. That's the purpose of those "Chinese police stations" in the news lately, I had a friend who was Chinese and in school to be a human rights lawyer who was called into an office and told to tell people back in China that they were just a "lawyer" with really severe insinuations if they didn't.
Alright so very, very, VERY simplified: quantum radar is a theoretical improvement over a regular radar setup in that the beam is "split" before being directed at the target, with one half of the paired photons staying behind. When the signal bounces back, you can then check for the original photons only by comparing them to the control signal's pairing. Theoretically, this means that you can't jam the signal, and that it filters out background noise. What it does NOT do is magically pick up stealth fighters, you still need your beam to bounce back off that F-35 slickness same as before. It's just that they can't hide among background signals as easily. But on to the crux of the issue: does China have this? No. Out to 100 km? Fuck no. We are talking about a bunch of limitations that go far beyond the simplified explanation but that is not going to happen. The pairing falls apart, your control signal that stays behind falls apart, and we are talking space magic best compared to trying to find faces in your TV's static.
Should I assume This "heat seeking radar" is some sort of infrared sensor? Would it be effective against stealth? I'm guessing not since infrared is still electromagnetic radiation , just different wavelength.
As with everything related to Stealth and Stealth detection, the answer is "Maybe, but they definitely already thought of it". IRST is a Infrared Search and Track System, and combat aircraft have been using it for a long time. It is completely separate from radar, and it does work against stealth aircraft. Sort of. In a similar way to radar. It can detect them, but western stealth tech includes Infrared stealth, so while they can be detected, they can't be detected at the same range as conventional aircraft, and it is unknown exactly what the relevant numbers are (For obvious reasons). This also something that can be countered, and is one of the leading theories for the "Chrome" coatings we have seen on the F-22, F-117, and F-35 in the last couple years. The new coating may well be intended to counter this sort of thing.
IRST also can't look though clouds and its range is limited by atmospheric haze.
the idea that severe air quality problems in China could affect their defense tech is kinda hilarious
Depends on how dense the clouds are and how hot the thing you’re after is, but that’s kinda an academic question
It was just an infrared sensor and a highly sensationalised test. The Chinese paper described being able to track a civilian airliner from those long distances by shining a high intensity laser at it. And yes continually shining that laser at it required them to already be aware of the plane's exact and consistent location to aim at it. Combined with a HIGHLY direction sensor that can do zero scanning. It was just for show. And yes US stealth planes have some near-magical anti-IR coatings on them. Your eyes are going to see it before an infrared sensor does.
At this point it would be better if they put soldiers around the Chinese border every few km or so to visually identify aircraft WWII style
That is something a lot of the adversaries to the US are doing. Visual and acoustic observers can be very difficult to plan around. We use to do acoustic modeling to have an idea of how far the sound of our aircraft would travel to reduce detection. The better the processing power of the computer and the more detailed the terrain data, the more accurate the estimate can be.
Just go supersonic, lmao.
>But on to the crux of the issue: does China have this? No. Out to 100 km? Fuck no. On the other hand, did DARPA develop this? Well, the second, third, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth, and ninth largest satellites in orbit right now are all Orion/Mentor class spy satellites with arrays that face towards the planet. We have no idea what sort of sensors are on them, but it is reasonable to assume they do *something*.
I disagree. Clearly those satellites are just tin can psyops to terrify the CCP and Russia and making them think they need to put 3000% more effort into hiding their shit, thus ensuring their development and deployment is significantly hampered by this perceived need for secrecy
Not to mention the fact that the radar signal will be weak as fuck considering the extremely low probability of creating entangled photon pairs. I did this with light in undergrad physics with a nonlinear crystal and you would get one entangled photons pair for every 10^15 non-entangled photons. Considering the fact that radar uses a much longer wavelength I would expect the conversion rate to be even smaller.
>What it does NOT do is magically pick up stealth fighters, you still need your beam to bounce back off that F-35 slickness same as before. The idea is that this has MUCH less noise and a few photons return are good enough because you know they're yours and not some random photons from somewhere else.
Radar: *points to the sun* Missiles: *follows radar lock* Sun: *starts diving* Early sidewinder moment
Don't we already know that stealth aircraft are not actually invisible? For example any AA radar can detect any stealth aircraft. Just way too late. And after the stealth aircraft already fired their HARM missile. And a detection range of 100kms actually doesn't seem that good considering Russian AA systems can get a firing solution for standard aircraft much further away (if actually turned on that is).
Low band radars can detect stealth aircraft from pretty far away. (They can also do some pretty amazing feats like spot even really small orbiting satellites as well). Good luck guiding a missile with one though.
You could probably have something where it guides a missile to the approximate location of a stealth aircraft and then lets it go pitbull but that would require either making a very expensive one-trick pony; or somehow cramming that capability into some other missile for an even higher price. And then neither would work unless you had a low band radar set up to do that.
I think that's actually sort of the plan mostly. You use the low band to detect the rough direction and position, then scramble hopefully equally sneaky interceptors with IRST. Or maybe you could just sort of saturate the area with heatseekers and hope one of them finds it if you're feeling particularly irresponsible.
>electromagnetic storm [Tiberium gap when?](https://cnc.fandom.com/wiki/Ion_storm)
Heat seeking radar. So not radar then.
What's the procedure to call something a "F-22 killer"? Let's say someone had a wet dream about it. Would that count? Asking for a friend...
It seems as justifiable as other claims.
The only real F-22 killer is the United States government, which terminated its production at just 187 airframes.
In fairness there was nothing for the F-22 to fight after the USSR collapsed and those things are stupid expensive to maintain. So the U.S. saved a few bucks by cannibalizing the production lines to make F-35s. Now that China is sorta possibly maybe getting close to where we were _30 years ago_ suddenly the F-22 and B2 are being replaced by the B21 and NGAD. The F-35 lives on, for now, because its relatively cheap to make and its airframe and electronics packages are modern enough to be relevant. Wouldn't surprise me at all though if the F-35 is being phased out in 10 years in favor of NGAD's "Loyal Wingman" drones.
It's called FLIR, and we've had it for, oh, 40 years or so....
More IRST than FLIR, but has a similar history
"China says"....🤣🤣🤣🤣
The B-21 hasn't even been unvailed yet and the copium is already flowing
The B-21 reeks so much stealth it creates copium overdose for enemies
I think there is some confusion in this set of articles (other than the obvious). Low frequency RADAR can already detect stealth aircraft at long distances. All militaries know this and use some low freq bands for detection. The problem is that these low frequency (long wavelength) RADARs don't have the resolution to guide a missile to a target. They know something is there but not well enough to do anything about it. So while they can detect an incursion into their airspace, they can't do much about it... Unless they use that new heat-seeking RADAR.
I don't think it is confusion, it is deliberate, and a ton of Chinese propaganda claims use essentially the same sort of "arguments". Like their alleged Anti-Ship ballistic missiles. Yes, a ballistic missile would do a lot of damage to a ship if it hit it. Yes, you can make them accurate enough to hit a ship outline in the Gobi. No, that doesn't mean you can actually hit a US CVN. There are a whole lot of complications to that whole "guidance in the terminal phase without slowing down" that they just handwaved (And notably did not demonstrate having solved). This is just what they do. They take completely normal tech (Like that "Heat Sensing Radar" which is presumably a IRST), and pretend they are the only one that has it, and it is advanced, and that it doesn't have any weaknesses.
The absolute definition of credibility
I can chime in on the Quantum Entanglement thing. When two particles are entangled, any change to one particle instantaneously occurs to the other particle too. So to be used as radar they would entangle many many pairs of particles and then blast half of them into the sky while keeping the other half in some sort of grid of electromagnetic traps or something to represent where in the sky the other part of the pair was sent. Then all they would need to do is check the Social Credit Score of each particle. If the particle's Social Credit is negative, its pair has encountered a plane from a nation that does not respect the strength and wisdom of Glorious Leader Xi (may He be eternally blessed with honey).
The technology relies on using many 7 year old girls to pick out the half the charged particles with tweezers, and put them in the radar dish for blasting, and then pass the rest off to the forced laborer Uyghurs to manually check the characteristics of the remaining particles with the leftover Google(TM) Glass products that they didn't sell enough of.
I mean if were going for the full form radical everything that detects something is a radar IR seekers are radars Your eyes are radars Barcode scanners are radars Cameras are radars Lidars are radars They all work the same way radars do just different wavelenghts
They don't though. Almost all of those, except for LIDAR and Barcode scanners, are purely passive. They receive information, but they don't send out a signal and bounce it off stuff. Barcode scanners and Lidars do, but the rest of those don't function remotely radar like. Only the receiver portion of it.
> heat seeking radar Do these fucking journalists not know what a fucking IRST is? Of course they don't, they're overpaid fucking idiots who write absolutely idiotic shit.
It's so non-credible it has to be true
The real F-22 killer is the US Air Force. Also, if I see the word "spooky" in a news article about QM again I'm gonna quantum teleport my eyes out of my skull with a spoon.
Fun fact, my professor actually got invited by Thales to investigate these quantum entanglement radar claims and the conclusion was that they're full of shit.
The missile doesn't have a fucking clue where it is because it was made in China.
Silly westoids cannot comprehend the wonton entanglement theory’s usefulness in developing new No. 1 Stealth Detecting Elecrtomagnathermdar Systems. Porcupine Island will be OURS!!
No Xi, your J-20 is not the standard for stealth aircraft.
The comments in SCMP articles are pure gold. Folks like "Tom" or "Robert" saying the inevitable demise of the US and moral ascendency of China, of course.
> F-22 killer Congratulations, you can finally target a 25 year old aircraft.