4 ms·

If a bunch of microphones and binoculars would defeat stealth fighters (or any kind of jets) don't you think someone in the US, Chinese or Russian army would ha

If a bunch of microphones and binoculars would defeat stealth fighters (or any kind of jets) don't you think someone in the US, Chinese or Russian army would have thought about it ? Just as a reminder the thing is coming at mach 1.5-2 and as soon as it can it'll send a little present coming your way at mach 2-4 > therefore it must be possible to create devices that can detect it. What's the probability some over worked dude who tweet 20 times an hour came up with something the US military–industrial complex hasn't thought about in the last 50 years ? Remember the early Ukraine invasion when a couple of bayraktars almost single handedly saved the country during the initial wave ? It was neither stealthy nor fast https://defence-blog.com/bayraktar-tb2-drones-saved-the-country-ukrainian-expert-says/ https://defence-blog.com/bayraktar-tb2-drones-saved-the-coun... btw his brand new idea is at least a hundred years old: https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eyPsCUn0O68/V8jmQwIYR5I/AAAAAAAAK4g/R_jxLZp6Xa47n9KAVaQ2LEzv0hWWHEeKwCLcB/s1600/acoustic_locator_11.jpg https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-eyPsCUn0O68/V8jmQwIYR5I/AAAAAAAAK...

JohnBooty 2y ago
Musk: "Ah, yes, let me use microphones to listen for objects approaching at greater than the speed of sound" I mean, yeah, if you control the ground in the battlespace and have microphone arrays all over the place, sure, maybe acoustic data could be... some part of... some kind of fused sensor network. But even with perfectly smart software and shitloads of microphones over a huge radius that is going to be a very laggy and imprecise way of measuring (checks notes) objects that may be hundreds of miles away, moving nearly or above the speed of sound, using a spectrum (acoustic waves in air) that only propagates signals at the speed of sound.
mrtksn 2y ago
Ukrainians already built a microphone network to detect incoming missile and planes.
- hkpack 2y ago
  Microphone network is mostly used for low speed and high noise Iranian Shahed drones which are also made from composite materials and have very low radar visibility. (For example, Moldovan military recently mentioned that they cannot detect them with their old USSR-made radars). When one is flying towards you, you hear it from few kilometres away for minutes as it has very loud petrol-powered engine. In contrast, when you hear low passing cruise missile, you will have just few seconds until it passes over you.
orwin 2y ago
I highly doubt f35 will use supersonic speed for anything else than repositioning/travel. In combat theaters i doubt it speed will go higher than Mach 0.8. And anyway, if you want CAS, to stop an army, A-10 will probably be a dozen time better suited than any multirole, and especially the f35 with its ridiculously low availability rate, or even better in that particular case, an AC-130 (that is probably able to direct a drone fleet in its latest revision, but that was speculation last time i checked) (the A-10 is the best modern plane in my opinion, i really like the F15, f18 and Rafale (those curves!), because i really like the idea of aircraft carrier but that plane is the best.)
- euler_angles 2y ago
  The default for an F-35 is to be at something like M=0.9 and altitudes of 20-25kft.
- Albatross9237 2y ago
  Supersonic speeds would certainly be used for beyond visual range (BVR) engagements. Higher speeds mean you and your missiles have more energy and maneuverability. Since the F-35 needs to use it's afterburners to reach supersonic speeds, it likely wouldn't use the extra fuel just for transport.
red-iron-pine 2y ago
> Remember the early Ukraine invasion when a couple of bayraktars almost single handedly saved the country during the initial wave ? It was neither stealthy nor fast The Bayraktars are the budget-drone option. A big part of their success was less that they're good, and more that the Russians kept all of their EW and AA turned off to achieve tactical surprise. Which they sort of did, but not enough to anchor the fight, and the budget drones were effective at killing a lot of AA early on, increasing their window of lethality. Once they got their EW & AA game together the Bayraktars stopped being dangerous very quickly.
maxglute 2y ago
>would have thought about it IIRC in 2000s there was talk by USAF that stealth is a 10-20 year advantage. Not something undefeatable. The actual degree to which stealth can be / is defeated, we wouldn't know until shooting starts. It's ancient technology at this point.
- _djo_ 2y ago
  Stealth doesn’t stand still. The latest low-observable US aircraft have lower radar and visual signatures than the previous generation. It’s not an indefinite ‘lead’, of course, but having decades of experience with LO shaping and materials means you can keep making effective incremental improvements.
  - maxglute 2y ago
    IMO keyword is incremental, but we don't know what relative gap is being maintained against detection... if any. As in detection, queuing, targetting might well have caught up, but the virtue of stealth may still be it forces adversaries to have denser sensor networks, even if it means stealth is dead if caught within net. My understanding focus is more on LO materials vs LO shaping in terms of design (to not compromise kinematics), but report suggest coating is not reliable after decades. If LO fighter that doesn't have optimzied LO shape can't fly with LO coating is not a good combo.
    - _djo_ 2y ago
      Anything that increases the time and effort required for both detection and tracking is worth it, and all else being equal a LO aircraft will always be more survivable in a dense A2/AD environment than one without LO features. It's a continuum, not a binary situation where stealth is either perfect or defeated. The USAF was well aware that it would not be able to preserve the impunity with which F-117s flew over Baghdad in 1991, but that was never the objective. Shaping remains by far the most important factor for reducing radar cross section, followed by the use of radar-absorbent materials (RAM) in the airframe and the application of a RAM coating on the outside. The F-35, for instance, gets most of its RCS reduction from shaping and the composition of its fuselage, and was designed with extremely low tolerances in order to rely a lot less on needing a top coating to cover seals, rivets, etc than earlier LO aircraft. So even when the LO coating degrades, as it does on long operational deployments, it doesn't catastrophically increase the F-35's RCS. That's an example of the sort of incremental improvement I'm referring to. The F-35 has come a long way in terms of LO from earlier US aircraft. Compared to them, it needs a lot less RAM coating, it can use less hazardous materials for that coating meaning you don't need as much specialist equipment to apply it, and it's more resilient to materials degradation. Those are all things it's somewhat difficult for even peer competitors like China to catch up to.

JohnBooty 2y ago

Musk: "Ah, yes, let me use microphones to listen for objects approaching at greater than the speed of sound" I mean, yeah, if you control the ground in the battlespace and have microphone arrays all over the place, sure, maybe acoustic data could be... some part of... some kind of fused sensor network. But even with perfectly smart software and shitloads of microphones over a huge radius that is going to be a very laggy and imprecise way of measuring (checks notes) objects that may be hundreds of miles away, moving nearly or above the speed of sound, using a spectrum (acoustic waves in air) that only propagates signals at the speed of sound.

mrtksn 2y ago

Ukrainians already built a microphone network to detect incoming missile and planes.

hkpack 2y ago
Microphone network is mostly used for low speed and high noise Iranian Shahed drones which are also made from composite materials and have very low radar visibility. (For example, Moldovan military recently mentioned that they cannot detect them with their old USSR-made radars). When one is flying towards you, you hear it from few kilometres away for minutes as it has very loud petrol-powered engine. In contrast, when you hear low passing cruise missile, you will have just few seconds until it passes over you.

orwin 2y ago

I highly doubt f35 will use supersonic speed for anything else than repositioning/travel. In combat theaters i doubt it speed will go higher than Mach 0.8. And anyway, if you want CAS, to stop an army, A-10 will probably be a dozen time better suited than any multirole, and especially the f35 with its ridiculously low availability rate, or even better in that particular case, an AC-130 (that is probably able to direct a drone fleet in its latest revision, but that was speculation last time i checked) (the A-10 is the best modern plane in my opinion, i really like the F15, f18 and Rafale (those curves!), because i really like the idea of aircraft carrier but that plane is the best.)

euler_angles 2y ago
The default for an F-35 is to be at something like M=0.9 and altitudes of 20-25kft.
Albatross9237 2y ago
Supersonic speeds would certainly be used for beyond visual range (BVR) engagements. Higher speeds mean you and your missiles have more energy and maneuverability. Since the F-35 needs to use it's afterburners to reach supersonic speeds, it likely wouldn't use the extra fuel just for transport.

red-iron-pine 2y ago

> Remember the early Ukraine invasion when a couple of bayraktars almost single handedly saved the country during the initial wave ? It was neither stealthy nor fast The Bayraktars are the budget-drone option. A big part of their success was less that they're good, and more that the Russians kept all of their EW and AA turned off to achieve tactical surprise. Which they sort of did, but not enough to anchor the fight, and the budget drones were effective at killing a lot of AA early on, increasing their window of lethality. Once they got their EW & AA game together the Bayraktars stopped being dangerous very quickly.

maxglute 2y ago

>would have thought about it IIRC in 2000s there was talk by USAF that stealth is a 10-20 year advantage. Not something undefeatable. The actual degree to which stealth can be / is defeated, we wouldn't know until shooting starts. It's ancient technology at this point.

_djo_ 2y ago
Stealth doesn’t stand still. The latest low-observable US aircraft have lower radar and visual signatures than the previous generation. It’s not an indefinite ‘lead’, of course, but having decades of experience with LO shaping and materials means you can keep making effective incremental improvements.
- maxglute 2y ago
  IMO keyword is incremental, but we don't know what relative gap is being maintained against detection... if any. As in detection, queuing, targetting might well have caught up, but the virtue of stealth may still be it forces adversaries to have denser sensor networks, even if it means stealth is dead if caught within net. My understanding focus is more on LO materials vs LO shaping in terms of design (to not compromise kinematics), but report suggest coating is not reliable after decades. If LO fighter that doesn't have optimzied LO shape can't fly with LO coating is not a good combo.
  - _djo_ 2y ago
    Anything that increases the time and effort required for both detection and tracking is worth it, and all else being equal a LO aircraft will always be more survivable in a dense A2/AD environment than one without LO features. It's a continuum, not a binary situation where stealth is either perfect or defeated. The USAF was well aware that it would not be able to preserve the impunity with which F-117s flew over Baghdad in 1991, but that was never the objective. Shaping remains by far the most important factor for reducing radar cross section, followed by the use of radar-absorbent materials (RAM) in the airframe and the application of a RAM coating on the outside. The F-35, for instance, gets most of its RCS reduction from shaping and the composition of its fuselage, and was designed with extremely low tolerances in order to rely a lot less on needing a top coating to cover seals, rivets, etc than earlier LO aircraft. So even when the LO coating degrades, as it does on long operational deployments, it doesn't catastrophically increase the F-35's RCS. That's an example of the sort of incremental improvement I'm referring to. The F-35 has come a long way in terms of LO from earlier US aircraft. Compared to them, it needs a lot less RAM coating, it can use less hazardous materials for that coating meaning you don't need as much specialist equipment to apply it, and it's more resilient to materials degradation. Those are all things it's somewhat difficult for even peer competitors like China to catch up to.