3 ms·
I forget where I heard it, but in a discussion about stealth fighters and stealth capabilities, the conclusion of one person was that it was a game of material
by mabbo 12y ago
I forget where I heard it, but in a discussion about stealth fighters and stealth capabilities, the conclusion of one person was that it was a game of material scientists vs computer scientists, and that in the end, computer scientists seem to be able to outpace material scientists.
- mightybyte 12y agoYeah, I saw a slightly different take saying that in the battle between stealth and detection, physics gives the advantage to the detection side. I have no idea what the justification was or even if it's remotely true, but it seemed like a plausible idea.
- ethbro 12y ago> Yeah, I saw a slightly different take saying that in the battle between stealth and detection, physics gives the advantage to the detection side. You could boil this down to saying that moving things fast and stealth are fundamental tradeoffs. The energy for the former has to come from somewhere, and at anything less than ideal conversion there are only so many places to hide the waste without compromising the latter.
- fnordfnordfnord 12y agoThe CS folks can iterate faster with software defined radios.
- dingaling 12y agoSome'big data' approaches to negating stealth include analysing holes that the aircraft create in the fabric of shortwave radio and cosmic background microwaves. It does seem that the detection people have data and CPY on their side.