It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

More U-2 whiplash

page: 2
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:14 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

EW is a lot more limited than people realize. There are two philosophies with EW. The brute power approach, which just blots everything, including your own radar out, and the subtle approach. The subtle approach blots out specific frequencies, and tries to only target specific radars. It's extremely difficult at best to make a radar return just disappear by EW systems. You can spoof it, and make them look in other directions, but flat out disappearing is a lot harder to do, and would require specialized platforms.




posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Sounds like, possibly, a case of "no, we're not going to reveal that particular aircraft after all, keep the cover going."




posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Zaphod58

I thought we had established it's a stealth drone that kind of looks like a mini B-2 stealth bomber:



Isn't it also capable of landing on a carrier?

EDIT: I seem to have the 170 confused with the 180. Still, doesn't the 180 look like what I said?


That's the X-47B, surely?



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

It sounds like a lot of complex computer programming and radio frequency play to me. I imagine that just killing everything with EW wouldn't be ideal in all situations because if your own stuff is knocked out...

They say knowledge is power. I'd imagine in the battlefield of the skies, knowing everything that is going on and having it packaged in a digestible way for a pilot is key.

Imagine an onboard computer that could figure out success rates of various approaches and weapon combinations on the fly with all available data at hand? It could give you percentages of success, and even a cost/risk analysis.

All the pilot would have to do is chose scenario "A" or "B". Maybe Kit's car from Night Rider will someday be a reality for our pilots. That'd be kind of strange if pilots started to become emotionally attached to the computers in their planes though...



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:20 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos

Pretty much yeah. Gotta have some excuse to keep that project hidden.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos

I'm pretty sure it is, or some type of variant. What I was getting at is that the overall shape is a flying wing, similar to whatever that green thing is.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

The problem is getting access into the radar system. To truly spoof it and make your target completely disappear, you'd have to get into the system itself. You can make the return bigger or smaller, but EW is a wild game.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: waynos

It is.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

A.I. hacking, or some kind of it. Have an intelligent, learning program that can adapt and worm its way into an enemy's radar systems, learn from it and exploit it. If it was good at what it did, it could be faster and more undetectable than a human -- it could do it on the fly.

I foresee in the future warfare will be fought computer program vs. computer program. Who can exploit who's software and hardware.

It scares me that we don't even make the most basic of computer components ourselves anymore.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:26 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

And that takes time. It has to get past any firewalls, if it can even access the system to begin with. It will take at least minutes to do. Minutes is seven lifetimes when in combat.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

We may hear similar rhetoric regarding the A-10 later this year. It's kicking ass while the -35 still can't shoot it's gun. I think the hog might hang around for awhile too.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

The F-35 gun is right on schedule. The A-10 will stick around because too many people want it.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 01:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

as an honor the a10 should be kept serviced and operation forever. Even in the year 3000 when we do warfare by teleporting quantum explosives or something crazy we should at least bring out the a10 for the final assault/ victory lap and let her do a run. A sorta mascot or something. Kinda like letting the marine corp bulldog mascot bite a Taliban on the ass or something. But with an A10.

I know, I know shut up bassplyr.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 01:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

WTF is going on with that? There must be some Lancaster vs Tudor type of holy war beneath the surface.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Zaphod58

yeah but then why build the 180 if the U-2 can just be upgraded and presumably hold a equal or grater payload? and why keep a manned platform around if you have a nice new drone to show off?


Surveillance of adversarial militaries which possess high-altitude SAM's & interceptors.


I HIGHLY doubt they aren't already flying missions with the 180 and the project behind that. so there not hiding it....



who knows what color those composites burn with...

They're plastic. They probably burn with a smelly black smoke like all the rest.

If they still glow after crash, then maybe the system is really simple, it's like a chemical glow stick? Depending on the mission profile (i.e. intended altitude, lower means you have to be brighter for optical stealth during daytime), pour in some glow juice when you fill up the fuel tank and it flows to brighten the skin for a few hours.

Sounds like a nice Skunkworks K.I.S.S. solution, no? Glow juice as a zero-energy drain backlight then print some cheap LCD shutters on it and you can make at least some camouflage, so that if you, or a missile's optical tracker, saw it, you wouldn't be able to focus on it or recognize it easily. Rather like a fluctuating octopus or cuttlefish.


makes one wonder why the 170 that crashed/landed in iran didnt pull the same self destruct...maybe we wanted them to hook all there computers into it.....


I heard once (maybe here) that the risk to ground personnel of having violent self-destruct technology was considered worse. (Whose finger is on the self-destruct button? A person, or a DSP board whose inputs may be jammed or not working right?)



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: penroc3
a reply to: Zaphod58

yeah but then why build the 180 if the U-2 can just be upgraded and presumably hold a equal or grater payload? and why keep a manned platform around if you have a nice new drone to show off?


Surveillance of adversarial militaries which possess high-altitude SAM's & interceptors.




who knows what color those composites burn with...

They're plastic. They probably burn with a smelly black smoke like all the rest.

If they still glow after crash, then maybe the system is really simple, it's like a chemical glow stick? Depending on the mission profile (i.e. intended altitude, lower means you have to be brighter for optical stealth during daytime), pour in some glow juice when you fill up the fuel tank and it flows to brighten the skin for a few hours.

Sounds like a nice Skunkworks K.I.S.S. solution, no? Glow juice as a zero-energy drain backlight then print some cheap LCD shutters on it and you can make at least some camouflage, so that if you, or a missile's optical tracker, saw it, you wouldn't be able to focus on it or recognize it easily. Rather like a fluctuating octopus or cuttlefish.


makes one wonder why the 170 that crashed/landed in iran didnt pull the same self destruct...maybe we wanted them to hook all there computers into it.....


I heard once (maybe here) that the risk to ground personnel of having violent self-destruct technology was considered worse. (Whose finger is on the self-destruct button? A person, or a DSP board whose inputs may be jammed or not working right?)


edit on 15-1-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

The RQ-170 originally had a self destruct system on board, but at least the CIA aircraft apparently had it removed after it may have played a role in a crash in California, near Barstow.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: mbkennel

The RQ-170 originally had a self destruct system on board, but at least the CIA aircraft apparently had it removed after it may have played a role in a crash in California, near Barstow.


I guess a safer system would be to give up on destructing the airframe, but still terminate the computer & most sensitive sensors.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 01:49 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Can you make the radar return go only 'up' where only satellites could see it?



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Theoretically with shaping you could do it. But it would be extremely difficult to do in reality, at best.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join