205
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 28 Nov 2023
205 points (94.8% liked)
NonCredibleDefense
6591 readers
889 users here now
A community for your defence shitposting needs
Rules
1. Be nice
Do not make personal attacks against each other, call for violence against anyone, or intentionally antagonize people in the comment sections.
2. Explain incorrect defense articles and takes
If you want to post a non-credible take, it must be from a "credible" source (news article, politician, or military leader) and must have a comment laying out exactly why it's non-credible. Low-hanging fruit such as random Twitter and YouTube comments belong in the Matrix chat.
3. Content must be relevant
Posts must be about military hardware or international security/defense. This is not the page to fawn over Youtube personalities, simp over political leaders, or discuss other areas of international policy.
4. No racism / hatespeech
No slurs. No advocating for the killing of people or insulting them based on physical, religious, or ideological traits.
5. No politics
We don't care if you're Republican, Democrat, Socialist, Stalinist, Baathist, or some other hot mess. Leave it at the door. This applies to comments as well.
6. No seriousposting
We don't want your uncut war footage, fundraisers, credible news articles, or other such things. The world is already serious enough as it is.
7. No classified material
Classified ‘western’ information is off limits regardless of how "open source" and "easy to find" it is.
8. Source artwork
If you use somebody's art in your post or as your post, the OP must provide a direct link to the art's source in the comment section, or a good reason why this was not possible (such as the artist deleting their account). The source should be a place that the artist themselves uploaded the art. A booru is not a source. A watermark is not a source.
9. No low-effort posts
No egregiously low effort posts. E.g. screenshots, recent reposts, simple reaction & template memes, and images with the punchline in the title. Put these in weekly Matrix chat instead.
10. Don't get us banned
No brigading or harassing other communities. Do not post memes with a "haha people that I hate died… haha" punchline or violating the sh.itjust.works rules (below). This includes content illegal in Canada.
11. No misinformation
NCD exists to make fun of misinformation, not to spread it. Make outlandish claims, but if your take doesn’t show signs of satire or exaggeration it will be removed. Misleading content may result in a ban. Regardless of source, don’t post obvious propaganda or fake news. Double-check facts and don't be an idiot.
Join our Matrix chatroom
Other communities you may be interested in
- !militaryporn@lemmy.world
- !forgottenweapons@lemmy.world
- !combatvideos@sh.itjust.works
- !militarymoe@ani.social
Banner made by u/Fertility18
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
It doesn't even make sense. Hypersonic missiles are good at being hard to take down themselves. But you don't need that to take down an aircraft. You need super sensitive radar systems, since the claim is that these aircraft reflect about as much energy as a bumblebee would.
That is truly amazing.
Do note that the this claim comes from the same people who don't hand out any actual specs and always fly with an additional reflector. The latter makes it easy for radars to see them again. This is helpful in allied airspace, but it also makes it impossible to verify the claim.
Also note that modern radars are sensitive to how fast an object approaches (or leaves) the radar. Bumblebees don't break the soundbarrier usually, so it is possible to see these planes, but you do have to tweak your radar for it. (Hence why the US doesn't give specs.)
Correct. But integrating over multiple pulses, and using the latest Tx and Rx modules, sensitivity is not the problem anymore. Radars can easily see every damn bumblebee in a 100km radius. The problem is filtering data, so that processing and/or the user is not overloaded. For example, if you track every single bird with a radar that has a 100km radius, you will not be able to see anything on the operator screen other than birds.
Doppler is easy to filter on early in the processing stage. Meaning that if you can detect the aircraft, you can still separate it from all other bumblee like objects. Clutter tends not to move that fast.
So they just need to build an aircraft that moves at the same speed and height as a bumblebee. Bam ! Undetectable killing machine.
You'd be surprised the velocity you get from the return on a bird's flapping wing. Also the Doppler ambiguity smears with SNR, so you'll see a bird as something moving between 30 and 300mph at the edge of sensitivity.
This how we get echolocating missiles.
Radar is echolocation with EM waves (low frequency light) instead of sound waves. And there are already plenty of radar guided missiles.
I meant to put ears on the missile. I'm sure the plane is still plenty loud.
That is called passive sonar. I suspect that it is kinda hard to hear from the missile. Anything behind you is certainly not hearable, since the missile goes faster than sound. I have no idea if you could measure the sound coming from the front. You also have to take into account that you are chasing an after image, since the plane is also faster than sound. But torpedoes use this, so the idea is valid.
Those are likely quite valid points. This being noncredible defense they have no place here.
Put a bat in the missile and let's give Project Orcon another go
Buzzwords are all that matters.
Also, too much of a credible point.
Most state of the art SAMs are technically hypersonic.
Interesting. I did not know that!
It’s not that impressive… a bumblebee can emit the same small radar signature as well.