mtv (27-02-17),tristen (27-02-17),Uncle Fester (28-02-17)
Interesting claimed development by the Chinese.
mtv (27-02-17),tristen (27-02-17),Uncle Fester (28-02-17)
Look Here -> |
This may add to the speculation that there were scientists on board the missing MH370 flight who had developed the technology, creating a theory that the plane was diverted somewhere that the technology could be stolen.
I'm sure our new $17 billion jets will be just as effective as our new $50 billion conventional powered submarines [sarcasm]
Last edited by mandc; 28-02-17 at 11:39 AM.
Godzilla (28-02-17),LeroyPatrol (28-02-17),Onefella (28-02-17)
The only thing effective is our Government in wasting money.
The Brits designed a prototype in a Uni a coupe of years ago:
although initially for other uses.
The idea is not stolen. Quite a few are working on entangled photons, mainly for quantum computing but I see the use in radar tech possibly earlier as there would be obviously
more funding for that.
Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...
Godzilla (28-02-17),manfromironbark (28-02-17)
We could have got two Sukhoi SU-35's for the price of one F-35. The SU-35 is superior in most regards, except without stealth technology. And now that very expensive stealth technology may be completely redundant. Another great decision by the Dept. of Defense.
There are a few things to consider.
The first is game theory. If you have a tactical advantage, it does not give advantage to inform your enemy that you have an advantage.
To add to this there are already a couple other ways of inferring the presence or detecting a stealth aircraft.
The problem is doing that accurately and doing it well enough to shoot down such an aircraft.
Even if the ground based radar can detect an aircraft, it isn't practical to move this system onto a platform like a missile.
The radar itself is vulnerable if it cannot defend itself. So you can what your enemy come and rain shit on you.
The weakness to a stealth aircraft is not that it can be detected. It's that they may have traded off aerodynamic performance for stealth.
You don't want a superior aircraft chasing you with machine guns or fly by wire missiles.
Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
One thing no stealth aircraft can hide are it's hot exhausts, unless it is gliding or electrically powered, which could be possible in the last 100km of the trip using UAVs.
UAVs are much easier to hide, massively cheaper and even better to deliver a surprise payload.
The term 'Unmanned' might not be quite correct as they could also be remote controlled (camera view via satellite, so lets call them FPVAVs) to ensure they find the right target.
Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...
Heard a rumour which i just started myself that over the horizon radar can pick these jets up?
There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Madness"
I have no way of knowing if this is even possible, but;
In my mind, a quantum radar would be capable of plotting hi-res 3D models in a to-scale virtual theatre. I would imagine the models would a be half-shell representation of what the transmitter 'sees'. A 3D representation of even half of the plane or ship would be invaluable for an accurate threat assessment and counter-measure preparation. Especially if you're trying to detect one these new F-35's, who's main claim-to-fame is so-called 'over the horizon' threat elimination.
Since we're playing with 'instantaneous' communications here, why not have the big, power-hungry, quantum radar ground/ship emitter, send its object location data to the outgoing missile in 'instant time' using the same technology. No need for radar on-board the missile at all. Just a little quantum receiver.
Actually, they can and they do
Have you seen the exhaust on an F117 ?
It doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be a considerable reduction.
yes this generalisation is correct. It's not always correct.. The reason is the wavelength of the radar. They're designed to avoid short range microwave radar.Heard a rumour which i just started myself that over the horizon radar can pick these jets up?
The longer wavelengths still reflect off the surface of the object.
Conventional radar does also still reflect off stealth aircraft. The logic is they deflect the signal away from the source. If you have other ground stations in other locations then it's easier to deflect those reflections.
If stealth were too good, then you can transmit a radar signal and look for a shaddow from where backscatter isn't happening.
That doesn't make sense.No need for radar on-board the missile at all. Just a little quantum receiver.
I'm not sure if you're missing the concept of how quantum radar and communications works.
Is suspect you're saying the quantum radar can work out the position of an aircraft and then a missile is launched and the current position of the target sent to the missile.
Unless of course the aircraft pilot detects the radar and pops a cap in it's arse, even if the missile is enroute. Until the SAM hits, the ground station which must continue transmitting is going to be a very big fat sitting duck.
The end game is of course if your quantum radar is well protected by fly by wire missiles and assuming those missiles can't be easily jammed.
Incoming missiles are targeted by outgoing missiles.
It comes down to simple firepower numbers:
1> My quantum guided SAM missiles can shoot down anything incoming.
2> If you have one more missile than I do assuming I have a 100% hit rate, I'm dead.
As for quantum radar holography, I also don't see this as practical in a tactical sense.
It would require multiple ground stations and correlation between those stations.
Not impossible and it does add redundancy to a military system. But we already know what an F35 looks like. Knowing one is coming really only lets you know it's going to give you a few extra minutes over an ICBM. You will be wise as to how you're going to die.
As an enemy of uncle sam, my real concern would be can my air to air missiles see a stealth aircraft at short range.
Since they don't have an F35 to test, you might think they would use some espionage, close observation and in air observation.
Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
In the early 2000's there was a claim CSIRO's over the horizon radar detected stealth from their wake.
cmangle (03-03-17),Godzilla (04-03-17),Tiny (04-03-17),Uncle Fester (03-03-17)
Interesting reading crash486
If jorn is so bloody good, how come it didnt see mh370 ?
Quite possibly.
I should really spend some time familiarising myself with recent quantum entanglement theory, but until then, I was letting my imagination work with what I thought I knew. A recipe for disaster every time.
My theory was to create a block of entangled particles and then split each pair of particles into either one of two blocks. If all the particles are of a known state, and are 'arranged' in a known order, then they could be interpreted by conventional electronics at either block, when a change of state in one block, will be instantly reflected in the other block. This would seem to me, to be the basis for instant, high-bandwidth communication between a ground-based controller, and a high-speed missile.
As I understand, entangled particles don't last very long and they are affected by distance. So my quantum radar installation will probably have to make the quantum 'data blocks' just before insertion into the missile to be launched. I don't know how you would suspend, or hold, the quantum particles in some sort of matrix that can be read and written to. That problem I'll leave for the engineering team to figure out.
I also don't know what to do about the fact that even detecting a particles state, can change it, and it's twin's state. But I'm sure there's an answer somewhere.
Last edited by Onefella; 03-03-17 at 09:53 PM.
I think you have a pretty good handle on the concept of quantum entanglement already.
You are sort of on the right track. You can't "store" entangled particles. The act of storing them makes them disentangle.
You also can't choose the state, the moment you do that, they disentangle. It's the act of doing something to the photons that causes it.
So forgetting about missiles, the focus is on the radar.
The logic behind it is actually very simple. Lets consider it in terms of Lidar.
If I send photons out into space, they will be randomly polarised.
Assume that my laser has a beam splitter which for every photon transmitted another is entangled and sent down an optic fibre.
Now we know our photons are not hitting anything as they fly off into space. So if we look at the photons at any point along the fibre the photons we see will also be randomly polarised. If I observe a vertically polarised photon, I know the one in flight is horizontal and vise versa. I see equal numbers of both.
When a photon reflects off a target, more photons of a particular polarity are reflected. So when we look at the fibre, there will be a point where the 50:50 random ratio of photons suddenly has a different ratio of 65:35 etc. We don't need to recover the photons in order to detect the target.
The really hard part is just making entangled photons. I can do it with gamma rays, and that is basically just a lab experiment to prove the concept.
You can buy a laser kit which will set you back a few thousand dollars to get entangled light photons.
But doing it with microwaves, while theoretically possible is really hard.
And the way they describe it, while it makes some sense, seems amazingly hard.
They generate the entangled photons with a laser and beam split it and send one of the photons down the fibre. So far so good. That all seems pretty easy.
The hard part is that they then use the transmitted photon down another fibre to mix with a microwave photon and transfer the entanglement to it.
It's at this point where my knowledge of quantum entanglement goes flying out the window. (Which is a good sign that you've got it right if you don't understand it).
So it should be theoretically possible to downmix the photons to the radar. How the hell you do this just seems impossible to me, but I'd guess they've got it in the bag already.
The inflight photon is now a microwave or radio photon with unknown polarity and it is transmitted into space.
The problem is that when you observe the photon on the ground in the fibre, the inflight photon is now spent.
You need a lot of photons in a continuous stream to make the system viable.
The practical aspect of it is that the quantum part is just piggybacked onto conventional radar. So you can't tell if ordinary air traffic radar can see you or not.
As a stealth pilot you assume it can't see you. Hence the strategic reason for not letting on.
The other aspect is how to monitor the reference photons. Assuming you have 300km of fibre coiled up. Much less if you really slow down the velocity factor.
Then you need an array of 600 or so photon coincidence detectors. It could be made small enough to fit into a small building, but it's not really something I'd expect to see on a tactical radar.
Detecting the particle isn't a big deal. It's quite easy to do. The simplest of entanglement experiments is generating the entangled photons (gamma rays).
One photon goes one way and the other in the other direction. IF they are entangled, then they will have complimentary polarities which can be filtered and then each photon continues on to a geiger tube where they are gated through an AND gate. If both photons arrive at both detectors, they were entangled.
Of course this does not exclude paired photons which aren't entangled. Hence you need a control or reference. In such a case, you can rotate the polariser plate. Entangled photons will not pass the filter and the set off the coincidence detector.
The result of the experiment will show something like 100 counts per minute entangled and 80 cpm not. Therefore, 20 cpm are entangled photons.
So while you can signal with entangled photons, you still cannot send information faster than the speed of light.
Though I can think of ways of doing it, I'm not sure if they violate that rule. Again, another good sign. If you understand quantum physics, you've probably got it wrong.
If you are not sure, then your probably on the right path.
Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
Great explanation Trash. I am now a bit less ignorant about quantum entanglement. Much appreciated.
Last edited by Uncle Fester; 07-03-17 at 12:50 PM.
Update: A deletion of features that work well and ain't broke but are deemed outdated in order to add things that are up to date and broken.
Compatibility: A word soon to be deleted from our dictionaries as it is outdated.
Humans: Entities that are not only outdated but broken... AI-self-learning-update-error...terminate...terminate...
You don't need radar to knock out our F35 jets, just a thunder storm with lightning, why because the Australian idiots did not tick the box where it said do you want the jets to be lightning proof. Proof was that the jets were to return to NSW prior to return to the USA (they are still actually American jets not yet handed over) They could not leave Avalon due to thunder storms over NSW, go figure!!!
There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Madness"
I would think any aircraft is designed to survive a strike in the common sense. Though it's not a thought small aircraft pilots like to entertain.
All aircraft avoid lightning if possible. There's a lot of bad press around the F35 so I might take any dys-news with a grain of salt.
It might just be common sense that if you have some nice expensive new aircraft, you don't fly them in bad weather and over unfamiliar terrain if you don't have to.
Better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air than in the air wishing you were on the ground.
Yes I am an agent of Satan, but my duties are largely ceremonial.
Whether the avionics are an issue??
There is a fine line between "Hobby" and "Madness"
Bookmarks