> put a bunch of cameras everywhere. > software can visually detect planes flying

> put a bunch of cameras everywhere
> software can visually detect planes flying
would that make stealth a meme?

  1. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah
    Can’t hide from satellites

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      who owns the most and best of those, anon?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        That what not his question. Other countries outside NATO are also trying to make stealthy planes

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Can’t hide from satellites
      just fly above them

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      That's why they should fly at night

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >put the camera on the bottom of the plane
      >it projects the terrain below to the displays on top of the plane
      >it's now invisible to satellites

  2. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You want the cctv cameras that can't see faces past 10'? Hit defcon 1 every time a cloud passes over?

  3. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Visual detection against cruise missiles with 1000-2500 km range.
    I dunno anon.

  4. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    No because cameras simply aren't that good.

    I guess theoretically if you had enough LEO satellites with decently powerful cameras you could theoretically get a live video feed of every square meter of the world, but it would be retardedly expensive to do this kind of thing.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      well it's a good thing the NRO doesn't give a flying fuck about something being retardedly expensive.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        HOW MUCH DO THEY SPEND!?!!?!

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          More than you do chang, more than you

  5. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    do these things have flares/chaff?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      They probably have towed decoys. This is your reminder that the f-35 has two of those.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yup

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          brainlet here, why does it look so smooth? I mean the smoothness of the curves.
          The smoothness makes it look almost biological in nature.
          Is there a specific reason?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            > Is there a specific reason?
            to reduce the radar cross section

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            The designers were a bunch of coomers who wanted to give the plane a toned tomboy tummy. It worked, and now I feel a tingle in my wee wee when I look at it.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Leaves little to no surfaces where the radar signal will bounce off directly back at the radar to pick it up. Early designs like the F-117 had those triangular shapes for the waves to glance off, but the flatness of the panels meant there were still a few angles that would send the radar signal directly back at the emitter if the plane was banking in a certain way.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              That was because that was the absolute best they could do with the computing power of the time, simple as that. They had all the equations for radar stealth for any object at all, based on "Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction" paper and further developed. But they couldn't crunch the math for more organic shapes, and for that matter it was barely on the edge of possible because computers were required to fly it, the stealth shapes are aerodynamically unstable. In the 60s for example it just wasn't even possible to do even if you calculated an aircraft shape because flight computers weren't good enough yet. By 1975 it was becoming just barely on the edge of possible.

              Obviously a few decades after that an computer power was already up by tens of thousands of times and now we can do basically anything.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >"Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction"

                >father of stealth
                >While working in Moscow, Ufimtsev became interested in describing the reflection of electromagnetic waves. He gained permission to publish his research results internationally because they were considered to be of no significant military or economic value.[4]

                >A stealth engineer at Lockheed, Denys Overholser, had read the publication and realized that Ufimtsev had created the mathematical theory and tools to do finite analysis of radar reflection.[5] This discovery inspired and had a role in the design of the first true stealth aircraft, the Lockheed F-117. Northrop also used Ufimtsev's work to program super computers to predict the radar reflection of the B-2 bomber.

                What's the word for this? That punishment of success that Russia does so well.

              • 2 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Checked
                Interesting, thx. Never knew the reason

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            there's a dragon hiding inside the plane, what you see is just the armor.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              I get your refernece

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              you forgot the woman hiding inside the dragon

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            living things are basically invisible on radar, so they emulate the shape of a tight woman's stomach to fool the radar.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            Despite what the retards think, stealth is mainly defined by the edges of a plane and its materials.
            The smooth curves is for aerodynamics.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          i want to fuck that plane

  6. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >zoomed out
    >can't see enough detail for a match but sees the entire sky

    >zoomed in
    >can find a plane but only in a very small area

    it is not that simple anon, you would need insane resolution

  7. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Even if you can record the entire sky, you cannot monitor it and I highly doubt a computer strong enough to do so exists in current year.

  8. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    As impossible as that is, it still wouldn't make stealth a meme, even given perfect cameras.
    'Not being detected' is a secondary aspect of 'stealth.' Think of stealth more as camo for vehicles. It's harder to see, but even if you do see it, makes it incredibly difficult to take accurate/good shots. In the US, 'stealth' also means ECM and ECCM of varying descriptions, from basic jammers, to creating false returns.
    Being able to see something does not mean you can deliver a weapon on it. 'Stealth' confounds sensors when it is detected, showing the wrong vector, velocity, distance, etc in occasional flashes of signal return. The B2 and B21 are functionally invisible, because once in the air they flip some secret switch in the cockpit. (only people with clearance knows what this does, I have some wild conjecture, though.) Stealth fighters don't rely on being invisible as much as they rely on fucking with the other guy and making any lock extremely unreliable.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >*outside of suicidally close distances.
      But yeah otherwise this.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It’s basically what happens in arma 3 when you try and shoot at a moving tank 3000m away on a server with really bad desync

        this
        spreytards don't understand that even when your stealth is compromised in terms of detection stealth makes a hit less likely.

        This, finally a smart post on this shithole.

        Thanks, frens. We all need to put in effort to make the board good.

        You don't understand what stealth is. You also don't understand how sat recon works.

        Look up the survivability onion.

        Primary stealth is not being detected.
        Secondary stealth is not being locked.

        I can't fucking believe I forgot the onion in my post.

        Also detection doesn't do you much good if the thing has already dropped its load and now is flying away. Stealth isn't invisibility, it just shifts the attacker/defender balance. Defender needs to spend more resources, which is hard in general because there are so many possible targets and avenues of attack. Stealth helps someone start to pick apart defenses, it's not an I-win it's part of general battlespace toolkit. Maybe cruise missiles are sent in first after key radar or the like. B-2 or B-21 is next dealing with hardened targets missiles aren't enough for. Then come other assets, everything working its way in.

        Which isn't to say visual and audio feeds along with lots of other stuff all feeding into serious AI won't be another level of the stealth cat-and-mouse game. But it's never about absolutes but relative advantages and the right tools in the right order to help pry open the lock. Like maybe in the future part of the kit will be flying at night and firing a ton of ultra bright flares in the sky first that fuck up any camera pointed up for hundreds of miles at least briefly.

        Exactly so. Much more eloquently stated than my post.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I going to start telling anons that stealth coatings are based on polymerised GMO onion skin.
          They'll work it all out when they google it.

          Way to miss the whole point. It literally does not matter if you can see it with a Mk 1 Eyeball.
          [...]
          My wild conjecture is that it uses some means of damping or destructive interference of signals emissions, possibly by ionizing a gas with the outer skin forming a conduit for said ionized gas.

          >some means of damping or destructive interference of signals emissions, possibly by ionizing a gas with the outer skin
          Like the SSV Normandy SR-1's cooling system?

          I suppose it's possible but even just a powered faraday cage could be a thing.

          But sure, there's probably active stealth as well as passive stealth. Also low-emission modes for electronics perhaps, not to mention just turning off transponders.

          >it's just hard to detect from a meaningful distance
          And I know it was previously said in the thread, but it should be emphasized that "meaningful distance" is a specific quantifiable thing too, typically related to the mission role in a given stage of an operation, but also to other vehicle capabilities. If stealth means a successful lock from 10 miles instead of 30 miles but the weapon load has some stand off glide capability and can be launched from 15 miles away then the stealth has done its job.

          Obviously those are toy numbers but the reality is actually better. A B-2 bomber since the late 90s can use a AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon glide bomb. From a high altitude release (B-2 can go up to 50k feet) the bomb has a max theoretical range of around 80 miles (this is totally unpowered, just gliding), it's fire and forget, combo INS+GPS (and I think one model has terminal homing capability too). So a B-2 even without missiles doesn't need to fly right overhead to bomb, it only needs to get within 14-80 miles (depending on altitude of approach) and then can fly away again.

          Other aircraft might use speed along with some stealth. The classic old SR-71 for example had some early stealthy aspects, but it didn't need much because it had so much raw endurance. If a missile or intercepting fighter wasn't already basically right where it was going to be, it was already too late. By the time early soviet systems could detect the SR-71, it was only minutes to seconds away, and then missiles fired at it or super sonic fighters launched would simply run out of fuel before ever catching back up.

          >By the time early soviet systems could detect the SR-71, it was only minutes to seconds away, and then missiles fired at it or super sonic fighters launched would simply run out of fuel before ever catching back up.
          There's quite a good documentary about the complexity of the successful shoot-down of the SD-71, it was a whole thing.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      It’s basically what happens in arma 3 when you try and shoot at a moving tank 3000m away on a server with really bad desync

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      this
      spreytards don't understand that even when your stealth is compromised in terms of detection stealth makes a hit less likely.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This, finally a smart post on this shithole.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        [...]
        [...]
        [...]
        Thanks, frens. We all need to put in effort to make the board good.
        [...]
        I can't fucking believe I forgot the onion in my post.
        [...]
        Exactly so. Much more eloquently stated than my post.

        Stfu doodoo heads.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Also detection doesn't do you much good if the thing has already dropped its load and now is flying away. Stealth isn't invisibility, it just shifts the attacker/defender balance. Defender needs to spend more resources, which is hard in general because there are so many possible targets and avenues of attack. Stealth helps someone start to pick apart defenses, it's not an I-win it's part of general battlespace toolkit. Maybe cruise missiles are sent in first after key radar or the like. B-2 or B-21 is next dealing with hardened targets missiles aren't enough for. Then come other assets, everything working its way in.

      Which isn't to say visual and audio feeds along with lots of other stuff all feeding into serious AI won't be another level of the stealth cat-and-mouse game. But it's never about absolutes but relative advantages and the right tools in the right order to help pry open the lock. Like maybe in the future part of the kit will be flying at night and firing a ton of ultra bright flares in the sky first that fuck up any camera pointed up for hundreds of miles at least briefly.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      W-w-what... what does the switch do...?

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        It jettisons the radar reflector that stealth aircraft carry to prevent mid-air collisions with passenger jets.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Stealth is only relevant to radar and a lesser extent infrared... it would make no difference to passive optical sensors

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Way to miss the whole point. It literally does not matter if you can see it with a Mk 1 Eyeball.

        https://i.imgur.com/v7HqKlz.jpg

        W-w-what... what does the switch do...?

        My wild conjecture is that it uses some means of damping or destructive interference of signals emissions, possibly by ionizing a gas with the outer skin forming a conduit for said ionized gas.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          There's patent drawings that exist for this. I have them saved somewhere but can't be fucked to find it atm

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Ok, but what is stopping a country from developing a purely visual tracking system that triangulates the position of an object with 2 or more cameras and uses that as targeting data?
          >clouds
          Ok, what about infrared though?

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            If you're going to do visual-only tracking or targeting, you'd need at least three cameras, all of which have the largest CMOS made on Earth by a pretty wide margin, looking at the thing for the entire time a weapon is on course, referencing a database of known specs all the while. This becomes a neat trick for things that are flying at 30k feet, and unless said SAM is wire guided, communication to it can be turned off courtesy of the B-2/B-21 ewar suite.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            it’s nice to see brainlets who never picked up a book on here.

            the exhaust is designed to cool and conceal the exhaust gases. these are fifty year old designs

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              They've already forgotten.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Anon, you gonna eyeball a target that's 300km away and hope to hit it with a missile that can't achieve reliable lock on it? Because that's what it sounds like you're trying to do.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          I can imagine some future AI system tied into astronomy class scopes that can easily see something from 300km away and supply enough vector for the missile to close within its own range, weather permitting of course. Plenty of disadvantages but one significant advantage is full complete passivity, nothing for HARM or anything else to notice since the is zero emission. It's an interesting possibility that might someday be part of the mix, and of course may be countered in turn (some future e-ink/microled derivative providing active optical camo), not a be all end all.

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          We already have IR-based locking, why can't we do UV/VIS?

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      This, I hate spreytards that act like survivability is just if a vehicle can survive taking a hit. It's a whole onion and while the vulnerability portion is helpful to consider it shouldn't be your focus.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      No way it's a single secret switch. There will be a switch per active countermeasure type.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yeah, that may have been oversimplifying it. It's known that they do SOMETHING, and that's about all we know, if I remember right, and then it's good to go.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        >There will be a switch per active countermeasure type.
        Why wouldn't there be an "all on" switch?
        learn how to UX

        • 2 months ago
          Anonymous

          Cockpits are designed by engineers. And engineers have a long tradition of designing control systems that you need a full engineering degree to be comfortable using.

          • 2 months ago
            Anonymous

            thanks, whenever I'm down on myself it's nice to be reminded that there are people active on the internet right now that struggle to read clocks and can get utterly filtered by dial indicators.

            • 2 months ago
              Anonymous

              So unlike most people you are of course an experienced B-52 pilot and recognize every single dial and know exactly what each is for right off the cuff.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Use traditional arty, assisted with HQ optic cameras
      wut nao bitch

  9. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >dont work at night
    >cant see through clouds
    >poor contrast vs background
    >dont work as early warning
    >cant guide missiles and it's vulnerable to jamming
    >expensive af
    >birds and insects shits on lenses
    >insects causes constant false warning
    Radar detection still is better and have plenty of variations to detect stealth planes. Also IR, and more advanced optics than just cameras. All of them already tested by the DoD. The burden of countering stealth planes goes to china and pussia that cant even make truly stealth, 5th gen airplanes.

  10. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You don't understand what stealth is. You also don't understand how sat recon works.

    Look up the survivability onion.

    Primary stealth is not being detected.
    Secondary stealth is not being locked.

  11. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >paint puffy clouds and shit on the bottom
    >the new stealth.
    Alternate
    >make the bottom a mirror
    >camera AI sees itself
    >existential crisis
    >whatami.jpg
    >an heros itself

  12. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    This already exists and is in use on the F-35.
    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/AAQ-37
    I know a bit on the F-35S. AMA.

  13. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    You just described a worse version of IRST. The problem is, at ranges you need to worry about, the aircrafts visual signature just gets filtered as noise, so it really only works at closer ranges. On the plus side, though you don't give off a radar signature, so you don't have to worry about SEAD

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Meanwhile, by the time anything is able to discern it from background noise, there's a massive fuckoff payload of HARMs inbound to every fucking thing screaming out a signal trying to look for the aircraft, plus a potential follow-up from previously launched standoff range munitions from B-52s.

  14. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Optics only give you so much magnification and throwing more light detectors in denser packages doesn't magically increase resolution meaningfully.
    Also you can use cameras for over the horizon detection.

  15. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >bruh just put nanites with cameras in the air that way you can literally see everything

  16. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    a sensor is a sensor you fuckwit

  17. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Stealth isn't invisible, it's just hard to detect from a meaningful distance unless you make your detection methods way to sensitive to background noise. I'd imagine a giant camera array would fall victim to the same issue.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      >it's just hard to detect from a meaningful distance
      And I know it was previously said in the thread, but it should be emphasized that "meaningful distance" is a specific quantifiable thing too, typically related to the mission role in a given stage of an operation, but also to other vehicle capabilities. If stealth means a successful lock from 10 miles instead of 30 miles but the weapon load has some stand off glide capability and can be launched from 15 miles away then the stealth has done its job.

      Obviously those are toy numbers but the reality is actually better. A B-2 bomber since the late 90s can use a AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon glide bomb. From a high altitude release (B-2 can go up to 50k feet) the bomb has a max theoretical range of around 80 miles (this is totally unpowered, just gliding), it's fire and forget, combo INS+GPS (and I think one model has terminal homing capability too). So a B-2 even without missiles doesn't need to fly right overhead to bomb, it only needs to get within 14-80 miles (depending on altitude of approach) and then can fly away again.

      Other aircraft might use speed along with some stealth. The classic old SR-71 for example had some early stealthy aspects, but it didn't need much because it had so much raw endurance. If a missile or intercepting fighter wasn't already basically right where it was going to be, it was already too late. By the time early soviet systems could detect the SR-71, it was only minutes to seconds away, and then missiles fired at it or super sonic fighters launched would simply run out of fuel before ever catching back up.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        forgot picture

  18. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Now try it in shitty weather, or when they're beyond the horizon with stand off weapons.

  19. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    motion detecting weather balloons every 100 yards in the sky

  20. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >can't get weapon-lock
    What's the point of knowing it is there when "there" is a 1km radius?

  21. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. Satellite cameras make stealth subs/stealth jets obsolete.

  22. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The counter to long range strategic stealth bombers is renting/buying homes near all the air bases that can stage the things - then have people looking out the window in shifts and messaging back anytime one takes off.

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah i'm sure china and russia both have spotters that live right next to whiteman AFB to let them know whenever the B-2s take off.

      • 2 months ago
        Anonymous

        They do. Chinese nationals are their spies.

  23. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    >paint airplanes blue
    >your $$$ camera network is obsolete

    • 2 months ago
      Anonymous

      presumably you can just get UV cameras.

  24. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    b2 is alien techfuckingnology, which came from the research being doing on alien spaceships in area51

  25. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    Even with the best lenses your optical range is very limited by atmospheric distortions, fog, dust particles, clouds and all kind of shit... there's sun light contamination during the day so to speak and no light during the night...
    That's why if you want to see planes at a meaningful distance you require certain wavelengths and dedicated illumination of the sky, this is, a radar.

  26. 2 months ago
    Anonymous

    The US actually already has a system of extremely high resolution sattelite cameras that cover the entire earth. They developed an AI about 5 years ago that will detect various things like planes and trucks. It runs on one of the AMD super computers the military bought recently. Used to run on an IBM computer but it wasn't even close to powerful enough.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *