New type of radar I can actually talk about...

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 08:49 PM
link   
The goverment agencys have to be a part of it.
so they can slow it down.
untill they can fool! it and hide from it.
they would never wont people to be able to see what They are doing.
and to make it looks like who ever they wont it to look like.




posted on Dec, 2 2011 @ 09:28 PM
link   
Sounds like the sonar i worked with back in the early 1970s

AN/SQQ-14 mine hunting sonar
articles.janes.com...

We could read the painted on letters on a 55 gallon drum almost 200 feet under water.
we were always being called out to hunt for missing planes. plane parts or lost. navy equipment.

Now they have the AN/SQQ-32 mine hunting sonar and i will bet its even better.



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 04:29 AM
link   
Sorry to ''çall you out' but I dont believe you.

I think the name radar comes from RAdio Detection And Ranging. Creature such as bats and dolphins use accoustic (Sonar).

Oh and if you have signed an agreement with a major, you have just broken the Non Disclosure Agreement in your excited attempt to tell people.

Probably lost your money and the rights to your own invention.

Damn I hope your lying or else you have just lost your 'golden egg'.

Oh and one more thing, humans have the ability to make mother nature extinct through hunting and fishing, whatever you are replacating isnt that intelligent.
edit on 3-12-2011 by FastJetPilot because: I like jelly



posted on Dec, 3 2011 @ 08:32 PM
link   
So if someone swapped the data plates between aircraft would it still find the correct serial numbers??

Just askin'...



posted on Dec, 5 2011 @ 11:31 AM
link   
/end thread

I guess this one can be moved to HOAX...



posted on Dec, 6 2011 @ 08:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by arbiture
 


Also if you can't put all the secret stuff and how it all works on this thread just send it me by PM

I won't sell it to the Chinese honest

But I tip my Hat to you sir because you have helped flying more safe (From one who hates it )
edit on 2-12-2011 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)


As for making flying more safe, and hell more fun, or boring depending on tastes, I'm all for it... As for the rest, sorry.



posted on Dec, 17 2011 @ 07:07 PM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 


Wanted to add a bit, I like some continuity in my posts... If you check out the 1/12012 issue of Popular Science (yes, Popular Science) they have an article that starts on page 50 of their US printed hard copy magazine. The article is "Invisible Warriors". Read the article, it's quite interesting. And though it does not directly discuss what I was involved with I can tell you this:

When the US struck targets in Serbia and Croatia in the 1990's, and you may remember we lost one of our early F-117"s The pilot was Scott Grady. It was an incident later well reported. Anyway what we found out is the use of simple cell-phone towers, when a signal was interrupted it produced a shadow that could be reduced by its minimum component against another tower. That "bubble" could with the proper information processing provide them or us a lot of data. And that may or may not have told the Serbians what to target, or they could have just got lucky w/their antiaircraft guns. Know once the bombs start to fall all you can do is open up w/everything you got. Reminds me of a Star Trek TNG episode when they talked about lining the Romulan border with "gravitic sensor nets" It dawned on me they didn't see the target crossing the "nets" they saw the gap. If a significant degree of signal was absorbed by our stealth airframes, it would show up as a "blind spot" against the broader signal.

But when I read that report years ago, now declassified it did get me to think. The number of "cell phones" in that part of the world was very small at least as was with the native populace. But after the fall of the Soviet Union there was a huge influx of western tourists. And they expected their cell phones to work, and you know what I found out? Often they usually did. Talk about being graceful hosts. And this wasn't just the rich dudes with satellite phones, but your run of the mill cell phones. Nice job guys... Very cool. Yeah, I'm keeping score...



posted on Jan, 2 2012 @ 09:44 PM
link   
In the past, back when stealth was relatively new, I thought of ways to defeat it. Blogged about the concepts and then left it as that. Not like I'm considered an expert in anything, so I'm doubtful it'd have been taken too seriously compared to anybody else's speculative blogs. Figured anyone developing the tech would know these vulnerabilities would show up eventually anyways.

Hypothetically, with enough computing power and the correct filters applied via signal analysis, any strong enough broadcast signal could be used as an emitter source for an ad-hoc radar of sorts. If you know the radials and how long it takes for the signal to reach you from local radio and TV stations, it's just a matter of intentionally designing an antenna to pick up "ghost" images. You then filter out the direct signals from the broadcast sources and those "ghost" (reflected) signals which remain static and non-moving in relation. (Likely you run the set-up a few minutes to calibrate and build a background map for your filter.) After doing that, you know the radials from the emitters, so you can compare post filter reflections and strength as related to the filtered sources which should be able to produce position data for any remaining reflections since those aren't filtered out as part of the static set.

I'd be willing to bet with the right receiver board plugged in, the right antenna, an OTS computer supplemented with fancy graphics cards and using CUDA could accomplish this feat. Since the core of the concept is data analysis and doing it rapidly, it's primarily a software problem.

BTW, such a system doesn't need any active broadcasting as radar in the traditional sense does, but it works to image data in a way that would be comparable to passive sonar. In other words, you're not going to be able to lock a radiation guided missile on it. It beats stealth as most stealth designs are intended to counter emitters in-line with their receiver, the signal absorbing materials only pick up the scraps. Now imagine how well that finely tuned angular deflection "magic" works when your emitters are miles off in random directions from your receiver. However the counter is to either use active jamming or put any strong broadcast source (TV and radio) on your primary target list.

As for the other alternate method? You could do background illumination of the ionosphere and then look for the dark spots. This is different than traditional radar too. (But sounds more like what you're describing.) It's more of a masking radar than a passive radar. (Called this because you're looking for whatever is masked out on a bright background.) However such a system seems like it would take a lot of power and use some dedicated emitter facilities. Something comparable to HAARP could do this.
edit on 2-1-2012 by pauljs75 because: minor edit, spelling.



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 01:38 AM
link   
No information, I'm pretty sure we know of the name of companies working on top secret projects. The fact he won't reveal company name is a logical proof of a hoax.
/HOAX



posted on Jan, 23 2012 @ 05:07 PM
link   
what company do you work for?
and how good is this radar compared to other's like aesa?



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 10:59 PM
link   
reply to post by arbiture
 


Interesting, this topic reminded me of a story I heard maybe several years ago in the news, C to C program or in a book I read...I cannot remember, but the topic either concerned China or North Korea researching advanced Radar implications to compromise aircraft with stealth capabilities. To counter the threat of stealth aircraft crossing No Fly Zones; the radar would actually focus on disruptions in the atmosphere that are common with either subsonic or supersonic aircraft, basically the wake or vortex an aircraft makes while traveling in the air. In so many words the radar pinpoints unnatural air displacement in the atmosphere rather than focus on minimal blips from aircraft that have advanced radar cross sections. I don't remember hearing whether this radar would focus on blips of this sort and determine wether the aircraft is an F-117, B-2, F-22, F-35, UAV or UCAV, but I was imagining each of these aircraft would present a specific wake, vortex or sound wave if you will and determine what speeds they are traveling. Would you have heard or know anything more on this subject or the likes? Thank's...



posted on Sep, 2 2012 @ 11:09 PM
link   
does this have to do with the mass animal deaths? the strange sonar activity/strange noises?

I recall many of the animals (aquatic) had their ear drums collapsed or something?

just curious. thank you for sharing this info!



posted on Sep, 3 2012 @ 02:12 AM
link   
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
 


I'm not so sure. Maybe overestimating what it can do with tail numbers and all that, but how often does someone come on here with almost 2000 posts and make up a story about that? Just a thought.



posted on Sep, 16 2012 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture

When the US struck targets in Serbia and Croatia in the 1990's, and you may remember we lost one of our early F-117"s The pilot was Scott Grady. It was an incident later well reported. Anyway what we found out is the use of simple cell-phone towers, when a signal was interrupted it produced a shadow that could be reduced by its minimum component against another tower. That "bubble" could with the proper information processing provide them or us a lot of data. And that may or may not have told the Serbians what to target, or they could have just got lucky w/their antiaircraft guns. Know once the bombs start to fall all you can do is open up w/everything you got. Reminds me of a Star Trek TNG episode when they talked about lining the Romulan border with "gravitic sensor nets" It dawned on me they didn't see the target crossing the "nets" they saw the gap. If a significant degree of signal was absorbed by our stealth airframes, it would show up as a "blind spot" against the broader signal.


Wow. SO wrong. Scott Grady was an F-16 pilot that was shot down and survived for three or four days hiding from the Serbs before being rescued. The F-117 pilot was on the ground for a few hours before being picked up by a CSAR team.

As for the shoot down itself, he was hit just after bomb release. The F-117 and B-2 have a HUGE RCS when the bays doors are open. The interior structure is standard materials that are not in the least stealthy. Add to that the fact that he was flying on the same route after multiple nights, and he made a pretty easy target.



posted on Oct, 14 2012 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by arbiture
. And I will warn you ahead of time, it won't look like your father's radar antenna emitter. The time's they are a changing, and I will keep you informed of the cool stuff.


fractal antennae, yay!


www.fractenna.com...



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 05:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Zaphod58

Originally posted by arbiture
When the US struck targets in Serbia and Croatia in the 1990's, and you may remember we lost one of our early F-117"s The pilot was Scott Grady.

Wow. SO wrong. Scott Grady was an F-16 pilot that was shot down and survived for three or four days hiding from the Serbs before being rescued.

First off his name is Captain Scott O'Grady. And Zaphod is right. He was the F-16 pilot shot down in Serbian held Bosnia, not in Serbia like most people think. This happened in 2005. And he was on the ground nearly six days, not three or four. Sorry this is off topic, but I hate when people confuse these two stories. I've even heard news agencies confuse them. so here goes:

Captain Scott O'Grady, in his F-16 equipped with HARM missiles, was shot down in Bosnia by Serbian forces using 2 SA-6 missiles, one that detonated between him and his wingman and the other that hit him. After four days on the ground, he finally radioed for help. SERE training tells us not to radio for help right after you go down. So he did it right in a sense (see below). The Marines came in late on Scott O'Grady's fifth day to rescue him, taking fire on the way back to the ship.

Now after the initial story of heroism, a lot of stories came out about O'Grady. First, he was only wearing a t-shirt and his flight suit in his jet, not what he needed to eject from the plane and survive. Second, he didn't know how to use his survival radio or the GPS to contact the planes he could see flying above him to tell them where he was. Also, he ran to the wrong reference point on his map. And all this is after the mistakes he made while flying. Rumor is the Serbs had locked on to his F-16 a few times before they shot at it and O'Grady didn't realize it and kept circling in the same area. Whether or not you believe this in my opinion is irrelavent. This man showed his courage after he was shot down by evading for almost six days and getting rescued. However, if these stories are true he probably would have been rescued a lot sooner.

Now for the F-117, which happened four years later in 1999. His name was Lt. Col. Dale Zelko. The stealth fighter had a callsign of Vega 31. Zaphod is right in what he says but there was more to it. He was shot down inside Serbia after dropping his two bombs, with the bomb bay door opened for a second, allowing the Serbian forces to catch a glimpse of his aircraft on radar. Next was the same route Zaphod mentioned. The RCS cross section on the F-117 is said to be 100 times greater with a standard turning maneuver which is why on a bombing run I heard that the F-117 can't deviate or bank more than three degree's either way. The turns were unavoidable with the strict flight route they had to take. Anyway, the real story is what the SAM was doing there in the first place.

One quick note, it was a KC-135 that first reported he went down. I don't know about that. I know where the A/R tracks were and we wouldn't have been that close to SAM's being a HVAA aircraft.

Three things went wrong. Actually more than three but three main ones. An unconfirmed report, but one that was commented on by General Richard Hawley, Commander of ACC, said that an RC-135 could not track three of the four SAM sites it was tracking and was slow to tell the commanders of the problem. Second, there were two F-16CJ's in adjecent airspace with HARM's on them. They could have kept the SAM site from emitting and stopped the downing. But because of massive cloud cover, they were recalled, and only F-117's and B-2's were allowed to fly in that far that night, which leads to the third. The third factor was the EA-6B that was flying with the stealth was 80-100 miles behind him, because of the flying restrictions in Serbia, rendering his jammers ineffective.

Basically, it took Serbian forces a lot of things to be able to down this aircraft. First, it was reported the jet took off out of Italy to the enemy. Next was the tight route it had to take, and the turns it had to make, showing it's RCS. Also, Serbs were using Low frequency radars on the SA-3's, which in theory could have seen the stealth, depending on who you believe. Former F-117 pilots and industry experts say that you can see the plane with low freq radars when it's directly above you or seen from the side. Combine all this with being able to see the stealth when his bomb bay doors opened and they fired a shot off that hit the plane.

In my opinion, a lot went wrong in this, obviously. But I will say that it was mostly a lot of luck on Serbia's part, along with quick learning, and bad weather.
Another cool thing to know is not very many people know another F-117 was damaged when a SA-3 detonated close to his aircraft. And after all was said and done, they fired over 800 SAM's at NATO aircraft, downing only the F-117 and an F-16.

I know it's long, but I can't stand when the two stories get mixed



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 07:00 AM
link   
reply to post by boomer135
 


Great post boomer. I'm glad to know that what I heard is right, and my memory was only off on little details.



posted on Oct, 15 2012 @ 07:11 AM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 


There's much more...I ran out of room! But yeah pretty important time in military history.





 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join