• Rednax@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    11 months ago

    It doesn’t even make sense. Hypersonic missiles are good at being hard to take down themselves. But you don’t need that to take down an aircraft. You need super sensitive radar systems, since the claim is that these aircraft reflect about as much energy as a bumblebee would.

      • Rednax@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        Do note that the this claim comes from the same people who don’t hand out any actual specs and always fly with an additional reflector. The latter makes it easy for radars to see them again. This is helpful in allied airspace, but it also makes it impossible to verify the claim.

        Also note that modern radars are sensitive to how fast an object approaches (or leaves) the radar. Bumblebees don’t break the soundbarrier usually, so it is possible to see these planes, but you do have to tweak your radar for it. (Hence why the US doesn’t give specs.)

          • Rednax@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            11 months ago

            Correct. But integrating over multiple pulses, and using the latest Tx and Rx modules, sensitivity is not the problem anymore. Radars can easily see every damn bumblebee in a 100km radius. The problem is filtering data, so that processing and/or the user is not overloaded. For example, if you track every single bird with a radar that has a 100km radius, you will not be able to see anything on the operator screen other than birds.

            Doppler is easy to filter on early in the processing stage. Meaning that if you can detect the aircraft, you can still separate it from all other bumblee like objects. Clutter tends not to move that fast.

        • BastingChemina@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          11 months ago

          So they just need to build an aircraft that moves at the same speed and height as a bumblebee. Bam ! Undetectable killing machine.

        • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          You’d be surprised the velocity you get from the return on a bird’s flapping wing. Also the Doppler ambiguity smears with SNR, so you’ll see a bird as something moving between 30 and 300mph at the edge of sensitivity.

        • Rednax@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          11 months ago

          Radar is echolocation with EM waves (low frequency light) instead of sound waves. And there are already plenty of radar guided missiles.

            • Rednax@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              11 months ago

              That is called passive sonar. I suspect that it is kinda hard to hear from the missile. Anything behind you is certainly not hearable, since the missile goes faster than sound. I have no idea if you could measure the sound coming from the front. You also have to take into account that you are chasing an after image, since the plane is also faster than sound. But torpedoes use this, so the idea is valid.

    • Turun@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      And the funny thing is, both op and the newspaper in the screenshot are doing it!

  • slaacaa@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    30
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    OMG, scary news. Time to increase the defense budget again, I guess…

  • Froyn@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Hypersonically it goes door-to-door knocking
    “Any B-21’s here? No, right then. On to the neighbors.”

    • Skirfir@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      This is the equivalent of someone telling you exactly which Bullshido moves they would use if they were attacked by a professional MMA fighter.

    • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      11 months ago

      In a simulation where the only radar reflector is one simulated jet, and there is no real hardware, it’s pretty easy to hit since the Pfa is effectively zero. In the real world, there’s a thousand different things which will give some similar energy return and there’s no simple way to filter that out without actually seeing the thing in real life.

      Stealth isn’t about zeroing the energy, it’s about pushing it into an ambiguous state space where it cannot be distinguished from birds and shit.

  • ExfilBravo@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    6
    ·
    11 months ago

    I worked on the b-2 (has the same tech nearly). If you take a panel off to inspect anything or fix an issue the jet has to go to the paint shop to have the paint re-applied because its most of what makes it stealth. The paint absorbs radar.

  • CJOtheReal@ani.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    11 months ago

    Lets find out, these things armed with nukes vs China and their “hypersonic” missile

  • Maggoty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    The most bat shit insane part of this is the missile absolutely cannot maneuver to intercept at hyper sonic speeds unless it’s a nuclear warhead. In which case, yes we know you can down a plane with a nuke.