If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Daily Mail)   US: Let's make planes invisible to radar to sneak up on our enemies. China: Well we have a cheaper alternative, we make radar think it's a passenger liner which no one suspects before it launches the missile   (dailymail.co.uk) divider line 97
    More: Interesting, invisibility, passenger planes, Technology Review, illumination, Electromagnetic Radiation, jet fighters  
•       •       •

5977 clicks; posted to Geek » on 23 Jan 2013 at 2:47 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



97 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-23 08:18:26 AM

Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: Why not just make the plane appear to be about two wingspans to the left of where it really is? That way heat-seeking missiles just hit the empty air.


Wrap the plane with displacer beast hides?

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2013-01-23 08:24:44 AM
Not impressed. I'm fairly sure "make military asset look like something else" has been in the playbook for a long time.
 
2013-01-23 08:25:45 AM

AtlanticCoast63: Remembers that on 9/11 we we getting ready to shoot down our own airliners....


Remembers when we shot down an airliner.
 
2013-01-23 08:29:38 AM
Germany has an even cheaper solution: 99 red balloons.

/Floating in a summer sky.
 
2013-01-23 08:49:41 AM
The Soviets and the US have both shot down airliners. Yeah. This will end well.
 
2013-01-23 08:52:17 AM
Iran Air Flight 655 was a civilian jet airliner shot down by U.S.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

Good luck with that.
 
2013-01-23 08:57:14 AM

Egoy3k: Last time I checked modern fighter pilots weren't using visual confirmation before launching on a target, you know since most of the time they engage long before they can actually see the target. All that dog fighting you saw in top gun only happens if things get seriously messed up during a major engagement. This is all doubly true if there is an AWACS in the area.


VERY THIS.

F22 Raptor + AWACS support = visual disguise rendered more useless than Aquaman in the middle of the Sahara desert.
 
2013-01-23 09:05:13 AM
This would totally work.....in WWI. Do we even HAVE a piece of air defense that uses visual ID anymore?

As far as ground defense it would work MAYBE once before the RoE is upgraded to "if it moves, shoot it just to make sure"

Not so useful.
 
2013-01-23 09:06:12 AM

viscountalpha: Photons are not exactly stable so getting a simulated image to look nearly perfect, while moving, would be considered a Quadruple hat-trick.


That's why I bathe them in a shower of inverse tachyons.

Works ever time!
 
2013-01-23 09:07:20 AM

King Something: Egoy3k: Last time I checked modern fighter pilots weren't using visual confirmation before launching on a target, you know since most of the time they engage long before they can actually see the target. All that dog fighting you saw in top gun only happens if things get seriously messed up during a major engagement. This is all doubly true if there is an AWACS in the area.

VERY THIS.

F22 Raptor + AWACS support = visual disguise rendered more useless than Aquaman in the middle of the Sahara desert.

Fixed that for you
 
2013-01-23 09:10:24 AM
Because an entire fleet of passenger jets flying in formation would not be even slightly suspicious, right?
 
2013-01-23 09:12:02 AM

DoBeDoBeDo: This would totally work.....in WWI. Do we even HAVE a piece of air defense that uses visual ID anymore?

As far as ground defense it would work MAYBE once before the RoE is upgraded to "if it moves, shoot it just to make sure"

Not so useful.


The better question is does India? A Pakistan/India war that China intervenes in is more likely than a war against the US.
 
2013-01-23 09:13:59 AM

naz-drala: King Something: Egoy3k: Last time I checked modern fighter pilots weren't using visual confirmation before launching on a target, you know since most of the time they engage long before they can actually see the target. All that dog fighting you saw in top gun only happens if things get seriously messed up during a major engagement. This is all doubly true if there is an AWACS in the area.

VERY THIS.

F22 Raptor + AWACS support = visual disguise rendered more useless than Aquaman in the middle of the Sahara desert.
Fixed that for you


img7.joyreactor.com
 
2013-01-23 09:14:47 AM

vygramul: b2theory: This is a terrible idea. This would provide next to zero advantage and it would encourage hostile nations to shoot down commercial aircraft (which has already happened way too often).

I cannot express how dumb this is. Next up.... Army vehicles disguised as Red Cross trucks!

There's a reason Geneva banned such practices.


Yes because its bad PR for war, its why the Germans stored ammo near hospitals, you won't take shiat for taking out an ammo dump but you will take massive shiat for bombing hospitals.

Its why china is stating this, they probably don't even have this technology but use this as a smoke screen for anyone shooting down one of their planes.
 
2013-01-23 09:27:42 AM
What i never quite understand with the ra-ra-ra types when they talk about the over-the-horizon missile systems and how badass they are and how they can kill the enemy from home is... why do they never consider the effects of countermeasures?

Historically, countermeasures and countermeasure tactics advance every bit as fast as new weapons development, tending to keep everything roughly equal tactically if not technologically.

Yeah, you've got the missile that can shoot from a bajillion miles away - what makes you think the target is still going to be there in this day and age?
 
2013-01-23 09:30:07 AM
Technology could be used to make a jet fighter appear to be a passenger plane, or a soldier appear to be a tree

That tricky MacDuff is helping the Chinese!
 
2013-01-23 09:33:53 AM

PIP_the_TROLL:
Yeah, you've got the missile that can shoot from a bajillion miles away - what makes you think the target is still going to be there in this day and age?


I'm going to guess because most of the guys we'd be shooting at are still using Soviet era tech. The problem with your post is that the US and our Allies are really the only ones developing the advanced counter measures to counter our own offensive capabilities and we aren't selling that to our enemies.
 
2013-01-23 09:34:20 AM

PIP_the_TROLL: What i never quite understand with the ra-ra-ra types when they talk about the over-the-horizon missile systems and how badass they are and how they can kill the enemy from home is... why do they never consider the effects of countermeasures?

Historically, countermeasures and countermeasure tactics advance every bit as fast as new weapons development, tending to keep everything roughly equal tactically if not technologically.

Yeah, you've got the missile that can shoot from a bajillion miles away - what makes you think the target is still going to be there in this day and age?


OTH missiles only has to hit the target once. Countermeasures have to work every time.
 
2013-01-23 09:35:28 AM

PIP_the_TROLL: Yeah, you've got the missile that can shoot from a bajillion miles away - what makes you think the target is still going to be there in this day and age?


yah, hold on, there's an ICBM headed for Enoch... let me move it real fast... oh, now I'm good. ok, carry on.
 
2013-01-23 09:37:45 AM
pfft. that's nothing, i just changed the RFID tag on my F22 and sent a Justin Bieber Box Set Christmas album over Beijing.
 
2013-01-23 09:41:06 AM

King Something: img7.joyreactor.com


The next mission is in the Mojave, they said...
 
2013-01-23 09:59:52 AM
Well, there's this... (pretty badass)

http://www.baesystems.com/magazine/BAES_019786/adaptiv--a-cloak-of-in v isibility
 
2013-01-23 10:03:12 AM

ferretman: Big difference when stealth technology makes the attacking air craft look like a small flock of birds compared to making it look like a flying banana.

Plus I seen those pictures off a science channel special that's already a few years old.


Are they going to fly under 200 mph?
 
2013-01-23 10:41:08 AM

Radioactive Ass: TV's Vinnie: During the war in Vietnam, B-52s used to pack tiny "Quail" drones that gave off an EM signature that looked like a flight of B-52s on Soviet tech radar systems. A clever way to freak out Charlie's early warning system and send MIGs & SAMS off on a wild goose chase.

That's a countermeasure not unlike chaff or flares. The difference is that they know (or should know) that there's a threat just not where it is exactly. What TFA is talking about is more akin to painting a tank to look like a ambulance, which (as mentioned above) is 100% against the Geneva Conventions.


Is China a signatory to the Conventions?
 
2013-01-23 11:01:14 AM
img.engadget.com

Inbound woman, Mach 2 at 25,000 feet.
 
2013-01-23 11:03:48 AM

Smidge204: vygramul: MaudlinMutantMollusk: I suppose this means we're going to need another carrier group

Nope.  It's not calculated that way.

No kidding. In order to keep the current ratio, we'll need more like four or five more carrier groups.
=Smidge=


It's not a ratio.  Keeping a certain amount of capability in-theater is a non-linear problem.
 
2013-01-23 11:05:34 AM

BgJonson79: Radioactive Ass: TV's Vinnie: During the war in Vietnam, B-52s used to pack tiny "Quail" drones that gave off an EM signature that looked like a flight of B-52s on Soviet tech radar systems. A clever way to freak out Charlie's early warning system and send MIGs & SAMS off on a wild goose chase.

That's a countermeasure not unlike chaff or flares. The difference is that they know (or should know) that there's a threat just not where it is exactly. What TFA is talking about is more akin to painting a tank to look like a ambulance, which (as mentioned above) is 100% against the Geneva Conventions.

Is China a signatory to the Conventions?


Not the latest one, Protocol III. But that just relates to recognition of emblems of medical and religious (non-combat) personnel. For all the important stuff: yes they are.
 
2013-01-23 11:33:49 AM

thisiszombocom: [reggiestake.files.wordpress.com image 850x364]
[reggiestake.files.wordpress.com image 850x361]


*Shakes tiny fist*
 
2013-01-23 11:34:37 AM

Jackpot777: BgJonson79: Radioactive Ass: TV's Vinnie: During the war in Vietnam, B-52s used to pack tiny "Quail" drones that gave off an EM signature that looked like a flight of B-52s on Soviet tech radar systems. A clever way to freak out Charlie's early warning system and send MIGs & SAMS off on a wild goose chase.

That's a countermeasure not unlike chaff or flares. The difference is that they know (or should know) that there's a threat just not where it is exactly. What TFA is talking about is more akin to painting a tank to look like a ambulance, which (as mentioned above) is 100% against the Geneva Conventions.

Is China a signatory to the Conventions?

Not the latest one, Protocol III. But that just relates to recognition of emblems of medical and religious (non-combat) personnel. For all the important stuff: yes they are.


Thanks!
 
2013-01-23 12:09:57 PM
Wonder if they're ready to repel the lawsuit from the Star Trek franchise....

It reads precisely like it.

So my question is, how many astronauts are going to have to run along side the jet carrying this cloak?
So my question is, just precisely how are they going to generate a 390 tesla field with a 2khp turbine?
 
2013-01-23 12:14:55 PM

vygramul: Smidge204: vygramul: MaudlinMutantMollusk: I suppose this means we're going to need another carrier group

Nope.  It's not calculated that way.

No kidding. In order to keep the current ratio, we'll need more like four or five more carrier groups.
=Smidge=

It's not a ratio.  Keeping a certain amount of capability in-theater is a non-linear problem.


Yeah, but you're thinking about it in a practical sense. That's the kind of thinking that someone using, or in charge of other people using, military hardware would think.

If you think about it in the sense that someone SELLING military hardware would think -- the way defense contractors and the Congressmen who represent the districts which house their factories think -- then you'll realize that we'll "need" at least 4 or 5 more carrier groups, a few dozen VTOL aircraft, 3,000 Bradleys and six regiments of horseback cavalry with bayonets on their rifles in order to meet the threat of MIGs with "This is totally a civilian aircraft, dood!" painted on the wing.
 
2013-01-23 12:42:14 PM

DoBeDoBeDo: PIP_the_TROLL:
Yeah, you've got the missile that can shoot from a bajillion miles away - what makes you think the target is still going to be there in this day and age?

I'm going to guess because most of the guys we'd be shooting at are still using Soviet era tech. The problem with your post is that the US and our Allies are really the only ones developing the advanced counter measures to counter our own offensive capabilities and we aren't selling that to our enemies.


Maybe you only think that because the other guys aren't so stupid as to announce their new technology on a monthly basis in Popular Science?

Human ingenuity beats technological superiority every time, hands down.

I'm not saying these new weapons systems aren't impressive, I'm just saying they haven't been really tested against anyone who can really put up a fight. And even in places like Iraq and Afghanistan where the technological gap is huge, they're still bringing down super advanced choppers and drones and hitting stealth jets and shiat just the same. Maybe the numbers aren't appreciable, but the if we went by what it says on the tin, it shouldn't even happen at all.
 
2013-01-23 01:09:29 PM

Some Michigander: "Sir, we just picked up a flight of supersonic 707's. Should we raise the alarm?"

"No, everything seems to be in order."

Conversations that will never happen....


In the CIC of USS Vincennes - "Light them up anyway, two Standard missiles!"
 
2013-01-23 01:25:13 PM

clovis69: Some Michigander: "Sir, we just picked up a flight of supersonic 707's. Should we raise the alarm?"

"No, everything seems to be in order."

Conversations that will never happen....

In the CIC of USS Vincennes - "Light them up anyway, two Standard missiles!"


Nice.
 
2013-01-23 01:34:20 PM
So put IFF squawkboxes on all non-ChiCom commercial flights? How hard is that?
 
2013-01-23 03:26:58 PM

mr_a: I seem to recall reading of 1950's "light kits" for B-52 bombers that made them look like commercial airliners from a distance.

No idea if that is true or not.


Very possible. Fighters back then would have relied on visual confirmation more

CSB
My ship in the Navy had a profile more like a cruise ship than a war ship (it was a tender). On at least one occasion, during a war exercise, the Captain had lights strung up to make us look even more like a cruise ship. We successfully snuck past a destroyer in the middle of the night because they did think we were a cruise ship rather than the tender they were supposed to catch.
 
2013-01-23 04:21:53 PM

weiserfireman: CSB
My ship in the Navy had a profile more like a cruise ship than a war ship (it was a tender). On at least one occasion, during a war exercise, the Captain had lights strung up to make us look even more like a cruise ship. We successfully snuck past a destroyer in the middle of the night because they did think we were a cruise ship rather than the tender they were supposed to catch.


Only believable if the entire crew loudly sang "Louie Louie".
 
2013-01-23 04:40:37 PM

Kellner21: weiserfireman: CSB
My ship in the Navy had a profile more like a cruise ship than a war ship (it was a tender). On at least one occasion, during a war exercise, the Captain had lights strung up to make us look even more like a cruise ship. We successfully snuck past a destroyer in the middle of the night because they did think we were a cruise ship rather than the tender they were supposed to catch.

Only believable if the entire crew loudly sang "Louie Louie".


God, I love this job.
 
2013-01-23 04:59:28 PM
img855.imageshack.us
 
2013-01-23 05:02:22 PM

b2theory: This is a terrible idea. This would provide next to zero advantage and it would encourage hostile nations to shoot down commercial aircraft (which has already happened way too often).

I cannot express how dumb this is. Next up.... Army vehicles disguised as Red Cross trucks!


Well maybe not disguising as Red Cross, but actually using them to transport troops and weapons in battle, that has been done
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link

Wafa Idris, the first Palestinian female suicide bomber, blew herself up in Jerusalem on Jan. 27, 2002, killing one and injuring more than 150. She worked for the Palestinian Red Crescent, and was able to bypass Israeli security and enter Jerusalem in a Palestinian ambulance with a EMT uniform.

During March, 2002, several Palestinian fighters engaged Israeli troops in Ramallah. The Palestinians camouflaged themselves by wearing medical uniforms and used ambulances to move from one spot to another. Israeli troops were condemned when they started to stop and search all ambulances after that incident

and so many more such incidents
 
2013-01-23 05:26:02 PM
Cry, baby cry. Make your mother sigh.
 
2013-01-23 05:42:03 PM
I really hate myself for doing this but...

Kage Bunshin No Jutsu!
 
2013-01-23 09:27:18 PM

PIP_the_TROLL: DoBeDoBeDo: PIP_the_TROLL:
Yeah, you've got the missile that can shoot from a bajillion miles away - what makes you think the target is still going to be there in this day and age?

I'm going to guess because most of the guys we'd be shooting at are still using Soviet era tech. The problem with your post is that the US and our Allies are really the only ones developing the advanced counter measures to counter our own offensive capabilities and we aren't selling that to our enemies.

Maybe you only think that because the other guys aren't so stupid as to announce their new technology on a monthly basis in Popular Science?

Human ingenuity beats technological superiority every time, hands down.

I'm not saying these new weapons systems aren't impressive, I'm just saying they haven't been really tested against anyone who can really put up a fight. And even in places like Iraq and Afghanistan where the technological gap is huge, they're still bringing down super advanced choppers and drones and hitting stealth jets and shiat just the same. Maybe the numbers aren't appreciable, but the if we went by what it says on the tin, it shouldn't even happen at all.


images3.wikia.nocookie.net
Don't be too proud of this technological terror you've constructed. The ability to destroy a planet, or even a whole system, is insignificant next to the power of the Force.
 
2013-01-23 10:49:06 PM

jedihirsch: b2theory: This is a terrible idea. This would provide next to zero advantage and it would encourage hostile nations to shoot down commercial aircraft (which has already happened way too often).

I cannot express how dumb this is. Next up.... Army vehicles disguised as Red Cross trucks!

Well maybe not disguising as Red Cross, but actually using them to transport troops and weapons in battle, that has been done
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link
Link

Wafa Idris, the first Palestinian female suicide bomber, blew herself up in Jerusalem on Jan. 27, 2002, killing one and injuring more than 150. She worked for the Palestinian Red Crescent, and was able to bypass Israeli security and enter Jerusalem in a Palestinian ambulance with a EMT uniform.

During March, 2002, several Palestinian fighters engaged Israeli troops in Ramallah. The Palestinians camouflaged themselves by wearing medical uniforms and used ambulances to move from one spot to another. Israeli troops were condemned when they started to stop and search all ambulances after that incident

and so many more such incidents


It's a really tough problem, how do you deter and punish people when they are already planning on dying for their cause?
 
2013-01-23 11:14:48 PM

crab66: Cthulhu_is_my_homeboy: That way heat-seeking missiles just hit the empty air.

Uh......


The article seems like it's talking about visible light. The headline is talking about radar and you are talking about infrared.


These are all different parts of the electromagnetic spectrum and I assume would take different technology to fool.


The basic principle ought to be the same for the entire EM spectrum. Not to say you could use the same device for all three cases, but if it works for light you should be able to build something that treats radio waves in an analogous fashion. Unless different wavelengths get their own physics or something.

/Of course, you know, I was joking, so there's that...
//Instead of an airliner, wouldn't it be more useful to look like a cloud? or empty sky?
 
2013-01-24 06:26:48 AM
images.wikia.com
 
2013-01-25 04:59:52 AM

Mandapants: [images.wikia.com image 850x478]


Make your mother sigh.

Oh, I miss you, good TV.
 
Displayed 47 of 97 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report