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: 3
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Would be cool if they had a EW system called Jedi Mind Trick where they send on the return wave of the radar a hidden subtle virus or spike that tells the radar's computers that it see's nothing and that everything if fine. Nice empty space. Or just another Air Crapministan over flight nothing to worry about. The old "This is not the aircraft you are looking for" trick.




posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

There's always been a fighter heavy paradigm. Almost all the CSAF holders came up through fighters. In fact after a certain point only one or two didn't come up through fighters.

That means non-fighter and unmanned platforms have had to fight like hell for funds.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
Would be cool if they had a EW system called Jedi Mind Trick where they send on the return wave of the radar a hidden subtle virus or spike that tells the radar's computers that it see's nothing and that everything if fine. Nice empty space. Or just another Air Crapministan over flight nothing to worry about. The old "This is not the aircraft you are looking for" trick.



It's called Suter.

Three generations of Suter have been developed. Suter 1 allows its operators to monitor what enemy radar operators can see. Suter 2 lets them take control of the enemy's networks and direct their sensors. Suter 3, tested in summer 2006, enables the invasion of links to time-critical targets such as battlefield ballistic missile launchers or mobile surface-to-air missile launchers.
The program has been tested with aircraft such as the EC-130, RC-135, and F-16CJ. It has been used in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2006.

en.wikipedia.org...(computer_program)

www.airforce-technology.com...


edit on 15-1-2015 by robi1000 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2015 by robi1000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: penroc3

Are you referring to the crash in needles where the witnesses said they saw a blue glowing object being pulled out of the brush near the river by helicopters. Said it was glowing that color when it went down and it was still glowing that color 20 minutes later when they hoisted it out. Thats interesting if thats the 180. And if that was the 180 and it was glowing blue then I suspect zaphod is right and we ain't going to see a picture of that bird for a long time, unless someone sneaks a photo out.


One word in this paragraph tells me it wasn't the 180: Helicopters. If the reports that came out are accurate, the 180 is in similar size and shape as the b2. We almost certainly know its wingspan from that reporter that saw the aircraft in a new "scoot and hide" hanger, I believe at Tonopah. Just going off of the dimensions of the hanger put the wingspan on par with the b2. No helicopter is going to be airlifting out an aircraft that big, especially one that may be on fire...


originally posted by: MystikMushroom
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.


Your pretty close here. The rumors are that the F-35 and its highly classified EW suite is going to be capable of literally sending a computer virus down to a radar station using 1's and 0's in the code. The radar station gets infected, and then communicates with the other stations and missile batteries, continuing the virus attack until eventually the entire radar system on that particluar network is infected. And before the radar guys can even guess whats going on, the (insert aircraft MDS here) wild weasels will have taken down the radar sites with ease.

Again, this is strickly rumor from industry guys. No telling if we actually have that capability yet. But i dont think its too far fetched.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:05 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

Yeah, but they also said that the radar on the F-22 was going to be able to detonate IEDs on the ground.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: boomer135

Yeah, but they also said that the radar on the F-22 was going to be able to detonate IEDs on the ground.


yeah but like robi1000 pointed out, suter is a real thing. and the next leap in that technology would be to attack using an EW virus. So i think its possible.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

I think it will be eventually, but we're at least a few more years away from it.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Yeah, but they also said that the radar on the F-22 was going to be able to detonate IEDs on the ground.


LPI radar in B-2 works in J-band from 12.5 GHz to 18 GHz, so if we say that AN/APG-77 in F-22 uses even lower frequencies down to 3 GHz like most modern radars, it's still too high. AFAIK IEDs are usually triggered remotely by cell phones and those work in sub 1 GHz band (800Mhz for example). Would be probably technically possible (but in practice almost impossible) if it would be for some reason triggered by Wi-Fi signal or similar (2.4GHZ).
edit on 15-1-2015 by robi1000 because: (no reason given)

edit on 15-1-2015 by robi1000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:25 PM
link   
a reply to: robi1000

Right, but that was one of the big selling points that the leadership used to sell it. They could use the SAR and other sensors to identify IEDs, and use the radar to detonate them. Realistically everyone that knew what they were talking about went, "You're gonna do WHAT?????" But Congresscritters ate it up.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Should be possible in someway to at least set the IED on fire with the microwaves from the aircraft and detonate them that way. Just take the 22's radar and focus it somehow into a tiny beam and fry the thing. Theres gotta be ways to do it.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

There isn't enough power to do it. Even a non-dispersed antenna couldn't do it. You'd not only have to go through the air, but go through several feet of ground, which is going to absorb the energy, just to get to the IED. And then have enough power left to set it on fire.

Not happening.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

I think an/apg-77 max power is around 20kW, but on average it's around 4kW. That's the power of room heater and you can't set fire to anything with 4kW unless if energy is really focussed. But that brings us to the absorbent properties of the object you want to set on fire for your chosen frequency of of the energy you want to use. For example, some things are rather easy to light up with 445nm laser (UV- blue color), others respond much better to deep IR, some to radio frequencies. There's no one size fits all.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 05:22 PM
link   
a reply to: robi1000

You're mention of 20 Kw reminded me of something fairly cool I read about the other day. Permit me to derail the thread for one post. Wanted to share this stupid bit of trivia. So I got this book called What If. Basically a scientist decided to answer all the silly questions he's received in his life time. One of the questions was what was Yoda's max output while demonstrating or using the force. The biggest feat Yoda did in the movies was lift the x wing. The scientist did some calculations and figures Yoda's max output using the force is 19KW. SO the Radar on the F22 is more powerful than Yoda. Bet Yoda could blow up IED's remotely, so I'm arguing that the f22 probably can too.

Luke BTW only demonstrated a max output of 400watts yanking his lightsabre out of the snow on Hoth.

Sorry to derail.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 05:25 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

And he didn't do it while it was buried 6+ feet under a surface that would absorb the energy he was using to lift it.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 05:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Hey we don't know what was in that Degobah water. Ever tried to extract yourself from a bog? I find you're lack of faith in the force disturbing.



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 05:42 PM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Since 0.735 kW is needed to raise 75kg for 1 m/s (definiton of metric horsepower), and Yoda lifts X-wing at rougly 0.1m/s, X-wing must weigh 19387kg (on Earth sized planet) if 19kW of power was used. :p

EDIT: Luke could do it too, but with his weakly 400W, he could only lift it by 2.1mm/s.
edit on 15-1-2015 by robi1000 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Zaphod58

Hey we don't know what was in that Degobah water. Ever tried to extract yourself from a bog? I find you're lack of faith in the force disturbing.



I agree...


originally posted by: robi1000
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Since 0.735 kW is needed to raise 75kg for 1 m/s (definiton of metric horsepower), and Yoda lifts X-wing at rougly 0.1m/s, X-wing must weigh 19387kg (on Earth sized planet) if 19kW of power was used. :p

EDIT: Luke could do it too, but with his weakly 400W, he could only lift it by 2.1mm/s.


I like this guy...



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:23 PM
link   
a reply to: boomer135

I find you disturbing. What's your point?



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 06:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: boomer135

I find you disturbing. What's your point?


and your dog hates me. whats yours? lmao



posted on Jan, 15 2015 @ 07:45 PM
link   
I really really really doubt the 'beam down a virus' story. In what way would a signal input ever have any influence on computer code? The computer doesn't take code inputs, and Russians know a heck of a lot about how viruses get in, or not. Surely control program would be on read/execute only memory.

And blowing up an IED with radar? Sure, if you use the radar to find it and then drop a bomb on it.

Much more likely to me is that the active radar, if properly directed, might be powerful enough to overwhelm a sensitive detection radar, and maybe even cause damage if you can overload some very sensitive input transistors or cause amplifiers to overheat. If there is some kind of resonant circuit, transmit on that frequency. (though this sounds like the job for a guided HPMW munition: a SAM site without radar is almost useless). (phase conjugate radar weapons?)

Interesting patent, though this is good for detectors: www.google.com... Hard to believe it's not black.
Maybe the attacking radar does the equivalent of probing the SAM's radar and figuring out a phase-conjugate pulse which would maximally overload it? Or more simply inverting the distortion from air from here to here. Something useful for the ground radar too, and Russians are very good at this kind of science & engineering.

Probably the receivers do have some kind of overload protection, but it may be global, i.e. massively reduce gain on all channels. But that would also reduce sensitivity for all the other targets. Think of detecting stealth aircraft at long range as like finding cats in a moonless night: you have to be really well dark-adjusted to small numbers of photons.

Then some nitwit shines a huge LED Mag-lite into your eyes. You won't be able to see anything else.

Then again, this strategy works pretty well the other way around too: use ground radar to blind aircraft radar. And the ground radar has more power and a bigger antenna. As always, there is a downside once again---you give away your location. The aircraft has the advantage of not staying in the same place.
edit on 15-1-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

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




top topics



 
3
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join