5 ms·

The actual content, after removing the ChatGPT-style filler: > Some contemporary stealthy strategic bombers like the famous B-2 are able to remain unnoticed ev

The actual content, after removing the ChatGPT-style filler: > Some contemporary stealthy strategic bombers like the famous B-2 are able to remain unnoticed even in the presence of low-frequency radars. But new radar technologies threaten even these powerful stealth bombers. Therefore, the F-117, optimized to defeat high-frequency radars, is no longer relevant in current fights. > Moreover, it cannot map out threat emitters in real time like its successors F-22 and F-35. It is also not able to survive when it is detected and confronted.

flangola7 3y ago
What are the new radar technologies? Isn't radar ultimately a very simple process?
- c_o_n_v_e_x 3y ago
  Not an expert but I think over the horizon radar is a relatively new-ish tech. Legacy radar is relies on line of sight to to your target.
- kube-system 3y ago
  Bouncing a signal is simple. Making sense of the signal you get back is extremely complicated.
- causality0 3y ago
  That's like saying "aren't cameras a very simple process" when comparing Explorer 6 and the JWST.
- icegreentea2 3y ago
  Improved networking and sensor processing is one big avenue of improvement. Low observable designs typically do the majority of their heavy lifting by 'deflecting' radar beams away from the source. This means distributed systems of transmitters and receivers, networked together with enough compute oompf could potentially do a much better job at detecting and tracking. At the absolute bleeding edge of radar technology (like... probably decades and decades out) is developing and deploying quantum radar systems (these use entanglement to try to increase signal to noise).
- meepmorp 3y ago
  AESA, actively scanned electronic array. Among other things, they're harder to detect and jam than older radars, so aircraft don't know if they've been detected and EW techniques aren't as effective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_electronically_scanned_array https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_electronically_scanned_...
  - jojobas 3y ago
    AESA is just the way you form and steer the beam and listen for the return. It doesn't automagically mean your beam is less detectable or harder to jam. It's the tricks that are easier to deploy with AESA that achieve that - noise-like signal, higher receiver sensitivity allowing for lower emission power, clever signal processing etc.
- jojobas 3y ago
  God no. The details were more secret than the atom bomb in the 40's and are much more complicated than that today.
exikyut 3y ago
+1 on the "hang on I'm reading the output of ChatGPT :/" - it took me until halfway through the article to realize. Ugh, that's not an easy/low-effort skill to pick up and run autonomously without effort.
- ryandvm 3y ago
  If you can't tell then why would you care?
  - johncalvinyoung 3y ago
    The frequency of published medium-length pieces with a low signal to noise ratio (which I generally avoid, whether human-generated or not) does seem to be going up with the proliferation of LLMs.
  - afastow 3y ago
    First of all they could tell, they noticed it halfway through not after the fact. I noticed it instantly when I saw an article from a site I'm not familiar with an article on a niche topic with zero timeliness. Secondly the reason to care is that it's a waste of time. There are an infinite number of stories that sound vaguely interesting enough to click on. Previously there was a sort of filter of "and that someone actually investigated and decided it was indeed interesting enough to write about". That didn't happen here. The article tells you absolutely nothing beyond that it was retired, potentially because "new radar technologies threaten even these powerful stealth bombers. Therefore, the F-117, optimized to defeat high-frequency radars, is no longer relevant in current fights." Is that even true? I don't know. There's a good chance it is, ChatGPT is right more often than it's wrong. But I'm pretty confident that there probably wasn't any human involved with the expertise necessary to fact check it. And the bigger problem is that it isn't really interesting, at all. Maybe it could have been if it went into more detail into why and how exactly it stopped being effective at stealth because of modern radar. But it doesn't go into anything like that because it was written by a chatbot which was prompted by a human who only wanted some words they could publish, not any actually useful or interesting information.
  - SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago
radu_floricica 3y ago
It's also wrong, because both F22 and F35 can still be seen by low frequency radars. Probably less, but it's still not a good explanation. Good topic, decent article, terrible way to answer the question in the title.

flangola7 3y ago

What are the new radar technologies? Isn't radar ultimately a very simple process?

c_o_n_v_e_x 3y ago
Not an expert but I think over the horizon radar is a relatively new-ish tech. Legacy radar is relies on line of sight to to your target.
kube-system 3y ago
Bouncing a signal is simple. Making sense of the signal you get back is extremely complicated.
causality0 3y ago
That's like saying "aren't cameras a very simple process" when comparing Explorer 6 and the JWST.
icegreentea2 3y ago
Improved networking and sensor processing is one big avenue of improvement. Low observable designs typically do the majority of their heavy lifting by 'deflecting' radar beams away from the source. This means distributed systems of transmitters and receivers, networked together with enough compute oompf could potentially do a much better job at detecting and tracking. At the absolute bleeding edge of radar technology (like... probably decades and decades out) is developing and deploying quantum radar systems (these use entanglement to try to increase signal to noise).
meepmorp 3y ago
AESA, actively scanned electronic array. Among other things, they're harder to detect and jam than older radars, so aircraft don't know if they've been detected and EW techniques aren't as effective. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_electronically_scanned_array https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_electronically_scanned_...
- jojobas 3y ago
  AESA is just the way you form and steer the beam and listen for the return. It doesn't automagically mean your beam is less detectable or harder to jam. It's the tricks that are easier to deploy with AESA that achieve that - noise-like signal, higher receiver sensitivity allowing for lower emission power, clever signal processing etc.
jojobas 3y ago
God no. The details were more secret than the atom bomb in the 40's and are much more complicated than that today.

exikyut 3y ago

+1 on the "hang on I'm reading the output of ChatGPT :/" - it took me until halfway through the article to realize. Ugh, that's not an easy/low-effort skill to pick up and run autonomously without effort.

ryandvm 3y ago
If you can't tell then why would you care?
- johncalvinyoung 3y ago
  The frequency of published medium-length pieces with a low signal to noise ratio (which I generally avoid, whether human-generated or not) does seem to be going up with the proliferation of LLMs.
- afastow 3y ago
  First of all they could tell, they noticed it halfway through not after the fact. I noticed it instantly when I saw an article from a site I'm not familiar with an article on a niche topic with zero timeliness. Secondly the reason to care is that it's a waste of time. There are an infinite number of stories that sound vaguely interesting enough to click on. Previously there was a sort of filter of "and that someone actually investigated and decided it was indeed interesting enough to write about". That didn't happen here. The article tells you absolutely nothing beyond that it was retired, potentially because "new radar technologies threaten even these powerful stealth bombers. Therefore, the F-117, optimized to defeat high-frequency radars, is no longer relevant in current fights." Is that even true? I don't know. There's a good chance it is, ChatGPT is right more often than it's wrong. But I'm pretty confident that there probably wasn't any human involved with the expertise necessary to fact check it. And the bigger problem is that it isn't really interesting, at all. Maybe it could have been if it went into more detail into why and how exactly it stopped being effective at stealth because of modern radar. But it doesn't go into anything like that because it was written by a chatbot which was prompted by a human who only wanted some words they could publish, not any actually useful or interesting information.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago

radu_floricica 3y ago

It's also wrong, because both F22 and F35 can still be seen by low frequency radars. Probably less, but it's still not a good explanation. Good topic, decent article, terrible way to answer the question in the title.