5 ms·

Apparently, nothing was found at the reported site. The airspace is now open again. https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1624595395635474433 https://twitter

Apparently, nothing was found at the reported site. The airspace is now open again. https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1624595395635474433 https://twitter.com/sentdefender/status/1624595395635474433 https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/1624593417878528001 https://twitter.com/NatashaBertrand/status/16245934178785280...

moose_man 4y ago
"NORAD detected a radar anomaly and sent fighter aircraft to investigate. Those aircraft did not identify any object to correlate to the radar hits. NORAD will continue to monitor the situation." Interesting, maybe it was a stealth aircraft? NORAD could probably detect a stealth aircraft like the Serbs did in the 1990s, but getting a precise location would be difficult.
- partiallypro 4y ago
  More likely an anomaly mixed with an already cautious NORAD due to the past week of incidents.
- tempestn 4y ago
  Other articles have reported they've changed how they're filtering radar signals, which could partially explain why more real objects are being found now, but would also result in additional false positives. > The incursions in the past week have changed how analysts receive and interpret information from radars and sensors, a U.S. official said Saturday, partly addressing a key question of why so many objects have recently surfaced. > The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said that sensory equipment absorbs a lot of raw data, and filters are used so humans and machines can make sense of what is collected. But that process always runs the risk of leaving out something important, the official said. > “We basically opened the filters,” the official added https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/02/11/military-shootdown-alaska-flying-object/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/02/11/...
  - nerdponx 4y ago
    I wonder if this means that there is a greater concern over stealth aircraft flying into US airspace, hence the need for greater sensitivity at the cost of losing precision and/or specificity.
    - thrill 4y ago
      I suspect that when the Commander-in-Chief starts asking why things aren't being detected sooner than after penetrating the coastline, then any previous filtering for "quality", as in meeting certain velocity parameters, whether being not too slow, or not "too fast" - i.e. a momentary reflection in two spots now gets interpreted as a high velocity paint instead of the previous two indeterminate and fleeting radar returns that would have been ignored - well, that filter gets turned way down and we end up chasing a lot of ghosts.
    - ocbyc 4y ago
      Additionally it explains why a balloon made it as far as it did. Extra work, but we're on alert.
- ummonk 4y ago
  More likely a small dense cloud or something.
- wolverine876 4y ago
  Do you have any evidence of a stealth aircraft? Is that just wild speculation? Who would fly a stealth aircraft over Montana (other than the US)? Where would it refuel without being noticed? > NORAD could probably detect a stealth aircraft like the Serbs did in the 1990s I'll bet NORAD has better sensors than the Serbs did 25 years ago.
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    >>other than the US Would not be the first time that the US left hand did not know what the US right hand was doing with a Top Secret Test of some kind
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      When else has that happened?
      - tekknik 4y ago
        Quite regularly. For top secret info / missions it’s strictly need to know. If you don’t need to know then you don’t know.
  - moose_man 4y ago
    China has stealth aircraft.
    - wolverine876 4y ago
      They may but the GP question was, why would they fly them over Montana and where would they refuel them?
      - tekknik 4y ago
        Why do you believe it needs to be refueled over the US? International waters ends 200 miles off the coast and China is less than 8000 miles away. There are jets with that range. Do you believe you’d know if Chinese refuelers were sitting off the coast?
- mshockwave 4y ago
  > getting a precise location would be difficult. (slightly tangent) and even more difficult to lock on the target. This is actually one of the primary purposes of stealth technologies: enemy can clearly see you on their radar but just can't instruct a SAM or air-to-air missile to shoot you down
ipnon 4y ago
Yeah and I’m the Queen of England. I know there is no conclusive evidence here, but something stinks.

moose_man 4y ago

"NORAD detected a radar anomaly and sent fighter aircraft to investigate. Those aircraft did not identify any object to correlate to the radar hits. NORAD will continue to monitor the situation." Interesting, maybe it was a stealth aircraft? NORAD could probably detect a stealth aircraft like the Serbs did in the 1990s, but getting a precise location would be difficult.

partiallypro 4y ago
More likely an anomaly mixed with an already cautious NORAD due to the past week of incidents.
tempestn 4y ago
Other articles have reported they've changed how they're filtering radar signals, which could partially explain why more real objects are being found now, but would also result in additional false positives. > The incursions in the past week have changed how analysts receive and interpret information from radars and sensors, a U.S. official said Saturday, partly addressing a key question of why so many objects have recently surfaced. > The official, speaking on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue, said that sensory equipment absorbs a lot of raw data, and filters are used so humans and machines can make sense of what is collected. But that process always runs the risk of leaving out something important, the official said. > “We basically opened the filters,” the official added https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/02/11/military-shootdown-alaska-flying-object/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2023/02/11/...
- nerdponx 4y ago
  I wonder if this means that there is a greater concern over stealth aircraft flying into US airspace, hence the need for greater sensitivity at the cost of losing precision and/or specificity.
  - thrill 4y ago
    I suspect that when the Commander-in-Chief starts asking why things aren't being detected sooner than after penetrating the coastline, then any previous filtering for "quality", as in meeting certain velocity parameters, whether being not too slow, or not "too fast" - i.e. a momentary reflection in two spots now gets interpreted as a high velocity paint instead of the previous two indeterminate and fleeting radar returns that would have been ignored - well, that filter gets turned way down and we end up chasing a lot of ghosts.
  - ocbyc 4y ago
    Additionally it explains why a balloon made it as far as it did. Extra work, but we're on alert.
ummonk 4y ago
More likely a small dense cloud or something.
wolverine876 4y ago
Do you have any evidence of a stealth aircraft? Is that just wild speculation? Who would fly a stealth aircraft over Montana (other than the US)? Where would it refuel without being noticed? > NORAD could probably detect a stealth aircraft like the Serbs did in the 1990s I'll bet NORAD has better sensors than the Serbs did 25 years ago.
- phpisthebest 4y ago
  >>other than the US Would not be the first time that the US left hand did not know what the US right hand was doing with a Top Secret Test of some kind
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    When else has that happened?
    - tekknik 4y ago
      Quite regularly. For top secret info / missions it’s strictly need to know. If you don’t need to know then you don’t know.
- moose_man 4y ago
  China has stealth aircraft.
  - wolverine876 4y ago
    They may but the GP question was, why would they fly them over Montana and where would they refuel them?
    - tekknik 4y ago
      Why do you believe it needs to be refueled over the US? International waters ends 200 miles off the coast and China is less than 8000 miles away. There are jets with that range. Do you believe you’d know if Chinese refuelers were sitting off the coast?
mshockwave 4y ago
> getting a precise location would be difficult. (slightly tangent) and even more difficult to lock on the target. This is actually one of the primary purposes of stealth technologies: enemy can clearly see you on their radar but just can't instruct a SAM or air-to-air missile to shoot you down

ipnon 4y ago

Yeah and I’m the Queen of England. I know there is no conclusive evidence here, but something stinks.