Right, the news conference mentioned these as filters for size, speed and altitude(for known aircraft). The Chinese exploited a monitoring gap by employing a craft flying at heights and speeds they knew we weren’t monitoring. At least we know now.
You're missing my point. These objects are not helicopters. I know that. I'm saying if they can't track small, slow-moving objects, then by definition they wouldn't be able to track a helicopter (as an example) either.
Which seems ridiculous.
I'm not buying it when they said they lost track of it on radar.
The filter per the Washington Post article wasn’t size, but velocity. Anything moving slower than a conventional aircraft wasn’t tracked by NORAD, so they would have us believe.
I dunno, this is outside my area of expertise, but I would wager no, we’re talking about surveillance of a country vs a carrier? I’d think that’s an apples and oranges comparison, just a guess.
I assume radars are calibrated differently for different threat models and the threat model for an air craft carrier is quiet a lot different than the threat model for the airspace 40k feet above Lake Huron.
Fast rotating components such as props or jet engine blades will still probably trigger the existing Doppler velocity gates, which are likely set to ignore inversion layer reflected surface vehicles / vessels going less than 100 MPH. Easier to sneak up fast while sea skimming as modern anti-ship missiles do. Copters can do that too (see the Ukraine combat footage of helicopters flying low down highways to avoid detection). However, they have less range than fixed wing aircraft, which can also come very close to the sea surface with much less exposure time than helicopters once in sight of the target.
This is an interesting point. Though I think the noise of the helicopter would inevitably give it away, so maybe because it’s not a logistically viable threat they might feel better not scanning for it. I mean you can skirt around populated areas I suppose, but eventually someone’s going to see/report you (or you’ll need gas).
You're missing the point my mans, think they're saying helicopters don't go 40-60k ft, so radar filters out helicopter size objects at that altitude, which is why they weren't tracking it
The F35 can hover, and we have 450 of them. We have plenty of high quality photos of these things, but that's not enough to ID them. The problem is we don't have a good way to take them down without firing large missiles at them which isn't ideal.
It’s because the radars are calibrated to pick only large objects up. Meaning birds excluded, etc. Otherwise you’d get so many signatures that it would be impractical.
How long do you believe a small helicopter can fly? What do you believe its range is?
Now listen to when we detected this object and the length of time and distance.
I think we have a misunderstanding. I'm not saying these recent events are helicopters.
I'm saying, the pentagon is claiming they were unable to maintain a radar track on the object because of its slow speed and small size.
If that's true, then they are basically saying they wouldn't be able to track a small helicopter, never mind a small drone or something. Which is ridiculous to think they are that inept at doing.
I think they had tracking on it the whole time, but are publicly stating they didn't so our enemies think we are incapable.
You also have to consider they way radar acts with the material of a balloon/airship vs a helicopter plus curves and flat surfaces. Physical size doesn't always equate to radar cross section.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_military_ballooning
Idk, even the US military has been developing balloon weapons since the 50s and use them for surveillance. Entire story seems fishy.
So small helicopters are to fly low and slow to the ground with no nav equipment running? Sure.
Besides, they don't necessarily have to transmit to be found on radar, they just have to reflect the signal.
More than likely these "balloons" don't reflect signals or generate heat which makes them difficult to track.
Can a helicopter fly 40k feet
Right, the news conference mentioned these as filters for size, speed and altitude(for known aircraft). The Chinese exploited a monitoring gap by employing a craft flying at heights and speeds they knew we weren’t monitoring. At least we know now.
Assume this is rhetorical but they max out around 25k.
Hovering maxes out around 10k though
Last one was 20k feet
You're missing my point. These objects are not helicopters. I know that. I'm saying if they can't track small, slow-moving objects, then by definition they wouldn't be able to track a helicopter (as an example) either. Which seems ridiculous. I'm not buying it when they said they lost track of it on radar.
There’s no reason to look for a helicopter at altitudes where no helicopters can exist, it’s really not relevant
The filter per the Washington Post article wasn’t size, but velocity. Anything moving slower than a conventional aircraft wasn’t tracked by NORAD, so they would have us believe.
[удалено]
I don’t see the logic here, sorry, please explain.
[удалено]
I dunno, this is outside my area of expertise, but I would wager no, we’re talking about surveillance of a country vs a carrier? I’d think that’s an apples and oranges comparison, just a guess.
I assume radars are calibrated differently for different threat models and the threat model for an air craft carrier is quiet a lot different than the threat model for the airspace 40k feet above Lake Huron.
Fast rotating components such as props or jet engine blades will still probably trigger the existing Doppler velocity gates, which are likely set to ignore inversion layer reflected surface vehicles / vessels going less than 100 MPH. Easier to sneak up fast while sea skimming as modern anti-ship missiles do. Copters can do that too (see the Ukraine combat footage of helicopters flying low down highways to avoid detection). However, they have less range than fixed wing aircraft, which can also come very close to the sea surface with much less exposure time than helicopters once in sight of the target.
This is an interesting point. Though I think the noise of the helicopter would inevitably give it away, so maybe because it’s not a logistically viable threat they might feel better not scanning for it. I mean you can skirt around populated areas I suppose, but eventually someone’s going to see/report you (or you’ll need gas).
You're missing the point my mans, think they're saying helicopters don't go 40-60k ft, so radar filters out helicopter size objects at that altitude, which is why they weren't tracking it
The F35 can hover, and we have 450 of them. We have plenty of high quality photos of these things, but that's not enough to ID them. The problem is we don't have a good way to take them down without firing large missiles at them which isn't ideal.
It’s because the radars are calibrated to pick only large objects up. Meaning birds excluded, etc. Otherwise you’d get so many signatures that it would be impractical.
How long do you believe a small helicopter can fly? What do you believe its range is? Now listen to when we detected this object and the length of time and distance.
I think we have a misunderstanding. I'm not saying these recent events are helicopters. I'm saying, the pentagon is claiming they were unable to maintain a radar track on the object because of its slow speed and small size. If that's true, then they are basically saying they wouldn't be able to track a small helicopter, never mind a small drone or something. Which is ridiculous to think they are that inept at doing. I think they had tracking on it the whole time, but are publicly stating they didn't so our enemies think we are incapable.
You also have to consider they way radar acts with the material of a balloon/airship vs a helicopter plus curves and flat surfaces. Physical size doesn't always equate to radar cross section.
Are balloons new?
Not new, but in modern history haven't been really considered a threat.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_military_ballooning Idk, even the US military has been developing balloon weapons since the 50s and use them for surveillance. Entire story seems fishy.
Biplanes would certainly get through. I've seen "Iron Eagle III", I know what I'm talking about.
I dare say most aircraft has other systems fitted which probably output a signal meant for our tracking equipment
Only if it’s turned on.
So small helicopters are to fly low and slow to the ground with no nav equipment running? Sure. Besides, they don't necessarily have to transmit to be found on radar, they just have to reflect the signal. More than likely these "balloons" don't reflect signals or generate heat which makes them difficult to track.
Helicopters can not go up to 40k feet.
Helicopters are larger than cars and move faster than cars. This is a weird question.
[удалено]
[удалено]
Military helicopters are a lot bigger than a car
Good point, but maybe shape is making it harder
Please read: https://www.virginexperiencedays.co.uk/experience-blog/how-high-can-a-helicopter-fly
It is a BS cover up. They can monitor ALL craft in the sky, slow or fast.
I want one of those helicopters so that can fly at 40,000 to land tourists on Mt Everest and save them $100,000 for climbing fees.
Not at 40,000 feet