4 ms·

New Stealth Spy Drone Already Flying Over Area 51

31 points by electic 13y ago

WestCoastJustin 13y ago
As a side note: Aviation Week is an incredible magazine. Next time you are at the magazine rack, be sure to check it out. Our office has a subscription and it just blows me away what is happening in the aviation sector. They cover everything, from jets, military, spy technology, to satellites.
zyztem 13y ago
Aveation Leaks article is much more informative: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article/PrintArticle.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_06_2013_p0-643783.xml&p=1&printView=true http://www.aviationweek.com/Article/PrintArticle.aspx?id=/ar...
- shutupalready 13y ago
  Yes, it is more informative. Does Wired just steal the content by adding the words, "according to Aviation Week and Space Technology", to their own article. Or do they pay a fee to Aviation Week to license the content? If it's the latter, why don't they just reprint the original and better article? Can anyone familiar with the magazine business explain this?
Theodores 13y ago
Sounds to me like this is the UAV follow-up to the U2 programme rather than the SR-71. It almost certainly flies s-l-o-w-l-y as per a B2 rather than at SR-71 insane-mega-speed. It has 24 hours or so of loiter time with no in-flight refuelling. Good luck with that, flying over the Crimea, with Russian S-400 missiles just a few kilometres away. Imagine the consequences, anything up to full-on war just because they shot down one of our drones.
- eliteraspberrie 13y ago
  That's my impression too. The most basic air force can defend against drones, let alone Russia's. Even this supposedly stealth drone is very obvious, from behind. Any IRST system would detect it immediately.
  - frankydp 13y ago
    There are numerous IRST mitigation systems.
  - frankydp 13y ago
    There are numerous IRST mitigation systems.
  - nether 13y ago
    IR attenuates rapidly in the atmosphere and is only useful for very short range detection (short range missiles, TV remotes, "laser" tag guns). The artist's concept seems to show the standard flat exhaust intakes (first employed on the F-117) which increase efflux "surface area" (versus a circle) to promote mixing with ambient air. There might be pre-exhaust mixing too.
    - greedo 13y ago
      IRST systems are actually quite long ranged for detection, it's identification that is more problematic. F-14D IRST systems were quite good at long range detection, and those were much older legacy systems with nothing like today's technology.
      - nether 13y ago
        Yeah, but still very limited by aspect angle to engine exhaust. Detection is ok, tracking is poor unless very close or with LoS to the tailpipes. Anything ground-based will almost never be able to stare directly at the aft end of an aircraft except during egress (i.e. after it's done its job). What I'm getting at is there are huge limitations to passive tracking of IR emissions, otherwise we'd be using it instead of (active) radar.
- dfc 13y ago
  This is the follow-up to the U-2 as long as you ignore the beast of Kandahar and the sentence stating as much in the article: "It’s the successor to the Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel, known as the 'Beast of Kandahar'” BTW, the best and the brightest tried to call you on AUTOVON, they want their cold war threat model back.
- steve19 13y ago
  Surface to air missiles are never the real problem, its the radar system. You cannot shoot what you cannot see, and you cannot open your eyes (turn on the radar) without letting everyone know where you are. Russia is sure to have deployed their most sophisticated (non-export) S-400 radar configurations in or just outside the Crimea ... but this drone is sure to be incredibly stealthy. If a F-22 has a radar signature of a steel marble ... this relatively small drone probably has a signature closer to a tiny ball bearing ... in the middle of a large sky. Its precise signature will be highly classified, making it very, very hard to spot.
  - ketralnis 13y ago
    If someone else is running a reasonably powered radar from more than one known location at a known frequency (both the broadcast frequency and, say, a pulse every 0.5 seconds), is there a technical reason that you couldn't use the echos from their radar without broadcasting your own?
    - lutusp 13y ago
      > is there a technical reason that you couldn't use the echos from their radar without broadcasting your own? Yes, there is. The only way to exploit someone else's radar for your own target detection would be to reflect so much of the original signal out into space that your craft would be assured of detection. It contradicts the idea of stealth. All you can do with someone else's radar is locate the radar. Anything else would jeopardize stealth, which is a big issue in modern times. > ... both the broadcast frequency and, say, a pulse every 0.5 seconds Military radars don't broadcast continuously, to avoid making it too easy to track the source. Also, modern radars use frequency-hopping and irregular pulse intervals to avoid predictable patterns. Phased-array radars even go so far as to randomize their search patterns in three dimensions, to further confuse the enemy about the nature of the signal and its source.
lwhalen 13y ago
What I'm curious about is, what sort of advanced technology are our rivals and 'allies' flying over us? Is our air/surveillance superiority absolute, or do they spy on us like we spy on them?

31 points by electic 13y ago

As a side note: Aviation Week is an incredible magazine. Next time you are at the magazine rack, be sure to check it out. Our office has a subscription and it just blows me away what is happening in the aviation sector. They cover everything, from jets, military, spy technology, to satellites.

zyztem 13y ago

Aveation Leaks article is much more informative: http://www.aviationweek.com/Article/PrintArticle.aspx?id=/article-xml/awx_12_06_2013_p0-643783.xml&p=1&printView=true http://www.aviationweek.com/Article/PrintArticle.aspx?id=/ar...

shutupalready 13y ago
Yes, it is more informative. Does Wired just steal the content by adding the words, "according to Aviation Week and Space Technology", to their own article. Or do they pay a fee to Aviation Week to license the content? If it's the latter, why don't they just reprint the original and better article? Can anyone familiar with the magazine business explain this?

Theodores 13y ago

Sounds to me like this is the UAV follow-up to the U2 programme rather than the SR-71. It almost certainly flies s-l-o-w-l-y as per a B2 rather than at SR-71 insane-mega-speed. It has 24 hours or so of loiter time with no in-flight refuelling. Good luck with that, flying over the Crimea, with Russian S-400 missiles just a few kilometres away. Imagine the consequences, anything up to full-on war just because they shot down one of our drones.

eliteraspberrie 13y ago
That's my impression too. The most basic air force can defend against drones, let alone Russia's. Even this supposedly stealth drone is very obvious, from behind. Any IRST system would detect it immediately.
- frankydp 13y ago
  There are numerous IRST mitigation systems.
- frankydp 13y ago
  There are numerous IRST mitigation systems.
- nether 13y ago
  IR attenuates rapidly in the atmosphere and is only useful for very short range detection (short range missiles, TV remotes, "laser" tag guns). The artist's concept seems to show the standard flat exhaust intakes (first employed on the F-117) which increase efflux "surface area" (versus a circle) to promote mixing with ambient air. There might be pre-exhaust mixing too.
  - greedo 13y ago
    IRST systems are actually quite long ranged for detection, it's identification that is more problematic. F-14D IRST systems were quite good at long range detection, and those were much older legacy systems with nothing like today's technology.
    - nether 13y ago
      Yeah, but still very limited by aspect angle to engine exhaust. Detection is ok, tracking is poor unless very close or with LoS to the tailpipes. Anything ground-based will almost never be able to stare directly at the aft end of an aircraft except during egress (i.e. after it's done its job). What I'm getting at is there are huge limitations to passive tracking of IR emissions, otherwise we'd be using it instead of (active) radar.
dfc 13y ago
This is the follow-up to the U-2 as long as you ignore the beast of Kandahar and the sentence stating as much in the article: "It’s the successor to the Lockheed Martin RQ-170 Sentinel, known as the 'Beast of Kandahar'” BTW, the best and the brightest tried to call you on AUTOVON, they want their cold war threat model back.
steve19 13y ago
Surface to air missiles are never the real problem, its the radar system. You cannot shoot what you cannot see, and you cannot open your eyes (turn on the radar) without letting everyone know where you are. Russia is sure to have deployed their most sophisticated (non-export) S-400 radar configurations in or just outside the Crimea ... but this drone is sure to be incredibly stealthy. If a F-22 has a radar signature of a steel marble ... this relatively small drone probably has a signature closer to a tiny ball bearing ... in the middle of a large sky. Its precise signature will be highly classified, making it very, very hard to spot.
- ketralnis 13y ago
  If someone else is running a reasonably powered radar from more than one known location at a known frequency (both the broadcast frequency and, say, a pulse every 0.5 seconds), is there a technical reason that you couldn't use the echos from their radar without broadcasting your own?
  - lutusp 13y ago
    > is there a technical reason that you couldn't use the echos from their radar without broadcasting your own? Yes, there is. The only way to exploit someone else's radar for your own target detection would be to reflect so much of the original signal out into space that your craft would be assured of detection. It contradicts the idea of stealth. All you can do with someone else's radar is locate the radar. Anything else would jeopardize stealth, which is a big issue in modern times. > ... both the broadcast frequency and, say, a pulse every 0.5 seconds Military radars don't broadcast continuously, to avoid making it too easy to track the source. Also, modern radars use frequency-hopping and irregular pulse intervals to avoid predictable patterns. Phased-array radars even go so far as to randomize their search patterns in three dimensions, to further confuse the enemy about the nature of the signal and its source.

lwhalen 13y ago

What I'm curious about is, what sort of advanced technology are our rivals and 'allies' flying over us? Is our air/surveillance superiority absolute, or do they spy on us like we spy on them?