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.

 

Help ATS via PayPal:
learn more

Chinese Claim New Technology (Based on Quantum Entanglement) Renders Stealth Useless

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 23 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TheBogmonster

They don't have true multiband, but they can at least hum the tune. There are some interesting ideas relating to it, but while they've had the theory for over 10 years it's fighting back as usual.




posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Im going to ask you to elaborate on this one. Define intercepted please?

What aircraft intercepted the SR-71?

Also, its well known by now that Nellis runs B-1b intercept training out in the NTS. From what I've been told its pretty much the toughest target to hit and intercept by the aggressor squad. The F-15 with any sort of load can barely break Mach 1 down low, the B-1 is screaming on the deck through the mountains and the intercept path that the aggressors have to fly JUST to get a shot off, let alone make a successful hit has something like a 3 second opening. Tracking, intercept and shootdown probability is very low. Up high thats a different story, but she's real dang hard to get on the deck.
edit on 24-9-2016 by BigTrain because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

Intercepted: Aircraft were in a position to fire missiles and shoot the other aircraft down.

The first time a single MiG-31 was at 65,000 feet, and 75 miles ahead of them. They had the SR-71 in a radar lock from 52,000 feet. They had them in visual range, and could have easily hit them with an R-33 missile if they fired.

The second time, a flight of six MiG-31s launched a coordinated intercept over the Barents Sea. They had all angles the SR-71 could have used covered by an aircraft, and were in range to shoot.

Flights over Sweden were routinely locked onto from the ground, and had fighters sent up to eyeball them going overhead, despite their jamming the fire control radar.

Again, speed, like stealth, makes things harder, it doesn't guarantee that a mission is going to succeed.



posted on Sep, 24 2016 @ 08:15 PM
link   
So they claim they can "detect" stealth. That's something that's been doable for years, stealth (as said already) just reduces the range at which an object can be seen. I'm sure detecting a Mach 2 F22 at 100miles is going to do them a lot of good.

How good a return are they getting and then how are they going to do anything with it. It's well known that stealth isn't great at defeating the longer band radars but they're to inaccurate to be used for interception or missile guidance. My guess is that this isn't any more earth shattering than any of the other "detection" methods already out there.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 08:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Donkey09

Yes there is no perfect stealth it just reduces the radar echo of object's so that is a perfect point, it has always been detectable, couple it with heavy cloud and low altitude plus sound compensation technology's and subsonic stealth can be all but undetectable hence the biopsy comtamination sampling mission's of the black choppers in all those cattle mutilation incident's in the US, of course they worked for an undisclosed entity or agency and probably were detectable to highly sensitive military radar but were probably regarded as just blip's or bird's even then.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Yep all odds are off once the missiles are in the air..



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 07:29 PM
link   
a reply to: BigTrain

From a physics dtandpoint this article is BS. First the decoherance problem just figuring out which ones were entangled. Than the fact shooting entangled photons in the atmosphere is going to destroy any photon entanglement. Meaning this is nothing but science fiction. They are trying to play off using entangled photons in microscopes and think they can just enlarge thr idea and have it work. Hate to say it but they can't by the way entangled photons or regular photons will act the same way on the craft. It's just a frequency. Meaning they aren't going to magically be any diffrent than any other EM wave hitting the plane meaning stealth will work just fine.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Umph, umpf. He said, holding his hand over his mouth.

Translation: it's not *quite* that way. The source article is a bit confused. I'd connect the dots for you but it's near and dear to my heart. Maybe Zaphod will.



posted on Sep, 29 2016 @ 10:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

No hablo quantum.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 12:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Bedlam

No hablo quantum.


That's no fair. I got told (albeit over a decade ago now) that I could stop "connecting dots for people" because that was exactly equivalent to exposing secrets. Even if I just gave a set of web addresses and said "read them in sequence and think deeply and carefully about each before going to the next".

eta: if it was something I'd only heard rumors about it would be different. Que lastima.
edit on 30-9-2016 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 12:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

No hablo quantum. I have enough trouble with the real world. Quantum makes my brain gibber.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 12:57 AM
link   
Ah, well. I'd tell you that there had been some recent posts on "looking around corners" with pulses of laser light but it would be connecting dots. Even if it's not QUITE the same. But similar. And if you really looked into it you'd find more similarities. Which could be interesting, if you thought about it long and hard. But I can't, because it's verboten.




posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Ok , just to get my head around this new technology , does it detect all stealth at 100 ks as claimed . The reason i ask this i imagine there is still quite the gap between Chinese stealth and US stealth .



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: Bedlam

Ok , just to get my head around this new technology , does it detect all stealth at 100 ks as claimed . The reason i ask this i imagine there is still quite the gap between Chinese stealth and US stealth .


Yes and no. Sorry.

Any stealth can be detected, mostly. (wince) What counts is, if you can vector fighters or missiles to the area in a useful way. For instance, a certain aerospace company whose name I suddenly forget despite having worked for them as a contractor has a neat way to actually IMAGE stealth fighters passing through a bistatic radar setup. I can tell whose fighter or bomber you are. Perhaps even a specific fighter out of many. But did you change course once I picked you out, I cannot say. At least not that way.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:32 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Ok i think i got it thanks to google on the bistatic radar setup . That works similar to how the f117 was detected over Bosnia . The Quantum Entanglement radar thing i am not sure about and now i am pretty sure i wont get a definitive answer . The wince kind of gives it away .



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: hutch622
a reply to: Bedlam

Ok i think i got it thanks to google on the bistatic radar setup . That works similar to how the f117 was detected over Bosnia . The Quantum Entanglement radar thing i am not sure about and now i am pretty sure i wont get a definitive answer . The wince kind of gives it away .



Sorry. The coyness and indirection gets worse as you get closer to things I'm pinky sworn not to discuss.



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:39 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

I follow. I have a few thoughts on how to maintain a radar lock on the stealth craft after its passed through a bistatic radar trip line. And how to do it so you (the guy detecting) remains undetected himself.

Yoyd have to be fast though with the part after the bistatic radar gets tripped
edit on 30-9-2016 by BASSPLYR because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:40 AM
link   

edit on 9/30/2016 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Its OK , as long as the west stays ahead of the curve and the f35s that Australia are buying arent going to be easily detectable for quite some time .



posted on Sep, 30 2016 @ 01:43 AM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Bedlam

I follow.


(elaborate shrug)



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join