The only information that escapeas from  the insode of an event horizone ois graviation. There are physical effects that apply to nearby objects outside an event horizon, that you might see, but the hole itself? Nope, not even evaporating. Do uyou know why? It has to do with gravitation, and the fact that Mister Hawking was wrong..

 

Moores law apples to computers not to detectors. Don't try to apply the wrong law to an argument.. Besides Moore's Law is about to bump up against the Planck limit, then what do you do? Nothing.

 

Inverse square law for a target emitted signal and signal return from the target are exactly the same as to detection threshold at the receiver .  You got that entirely wrong. I bet you don't even know why. 

 

The rest of your post is not relevant to the topic as you do not have accurate assumptions.  

 

Example:

 

Unless you can explain the Bell Theorem without quantum entanglement at the first space time event, then I suggest  you be very quiet about all physics not being local. Once again you don't know what you are talking about. This is evident after I sort of told you that an interval has no time scalar, but an event (the transfer of information by bosons is a speed of light vector limited EVENT to an observer) DOES.

 

One more thing, you don;'t know the forst thing about beam dispersion at high frequency. Let me know when you fugure that one out. A hint is that gamma rays make a lousy radar beam through the atmosphere. 

 

Well, I am not claiming to be an "expert" in anything, but I will refer you to all of my posts and invite you to point out any errors, and while you're at it point out where I "gave away" anything.  If you'll take the word of a few regular posters who are still here, I'm sure gf0012, DA, and swhitebull at least would agree that they know I have some experience in defense-related subjects--again, not that that makes me an "expert" nor always right.  But mainly, I would hope the difference is obvious between what and how I write and what and how guys like (for example) BW, slowman, and in this specific example redparadize, write.  If not, well, then like I said, I guess there's not much else I can do to persuade you otherwise, other than to continue to offer what data and opinions I can about whatever is being discussed and hoping you can reach the right conclusions therefrom.

Hamilcar :

 

About the inverse square law and passive/active radar:

Active sensor: Active Sensor emit the signal --->1/r² ---> Target reflecting the signal ---> 1/r²---> Signal back to the Sensor. = 1/r⁴

Passive sensor: Target Active Sensor emit the signal ---> 1/r²--->Signal reach the passive sensor = 1/r²

 

More clear like that?

 

Moore's law also apply to sensor's resolution and sensitivity. But unlile chipset, the CCD, CMOS and other sensor still have plenty of room before facing Planck limit.

 

You don't think the thermodynamics law (second law) was relevant in my last post? 

 

I notice you still didn't answer my question, so again:

Do you state thats impossible, due to law of physic, using any kind of current or future technology, to detect and track LO aircraft beyond his engagement range ?

 

About Bell?s Theorem&quantum entanglement

 

About the inverse square law and passive/active radar:

Active sensor: Active Sensor emit the signal --->1/r² ---> Target reflecting the signal ---> 1/r²---> Signal back to the Sensor. = 1/r⁴

Passive sensor: Target Active Sensor emit the signal ---> 1/r²--->Signal reach the passive sensor = 1/r²

 

I will again point out that by talking about power emitted by the targets, now you are no longer talking about "passive" radars like the multistatic networks mentioned in the initial article.  One of the many difficulties with practical use of radars relying on "background" emitters like commercial TV, radio, or cell phone broadcast sources often is a relatively short range, which is due at least in part to rather low power actually illuminating the targets.

 

 

For a single aircraft, VLO and internal bay led to a 50 % heavier aircraft.with according more powerful engines.

However it is clearly worth the price.However F35 have been a compromized in high altitude air to air performance since internal bay is huge to carry heavy loads.If not it would have led to a 16 tons empty aircraft instead of 13.

  

No, it doesn't negate LO advantage since RF guided missiles have a limited capability considering seeker weight and we know that a solution has to be find for medium range AtoA or GtoA missiles to be able to lock autonomously on a VLO aircraft.

Moreover LO help jamming opportunities.

It is a big problem currently.

 Moreover in any way, fielding sensors able to counter stealth (passive or active) add a lot of price so you have less systems.

 

Weapon technology is always a race.

It is not because speed is less relevant today that we came back to subsonic piston engine aircraft.

Stealth is important and will stay important, will improve (spectrum extension including visible or low frequencies) and become more affordable.

All futur combat aircraft will be stealthy with of course different levels, considering requirement and ECM.

 

...and considering the mission of the F-35, overall it's a trade-up and worth the cost in dollars and performance (which I think you agree with)--especially since even in air-to-air, high performance maneuvering capability is a luxury that is great to have for the few times it will actually matter, rather than a need to have like LO is because it will have a significant impact nearly all of the time.

Wrong.

I determine what I answer and how. Y actually answered your question at a very simple level.

Now you are trying to change a definition that you do not understand into something else that is nothing likie the concept so that you can prove a rhetorical point., If you don't actually understand, then ASK. Don't try to make a wrong statement.

In simple English, Bell's theorem states that at the beginning of the universe all matter and energy was single with no interval, that when the first  event occurred this "unitary identity" remained with two, then four and sixteen etc, separations of  forces and particles and that down to the present the intervals established then at the quantization and separation, exists now. The boson force carriers across those intervals are the time increment and unless those bosons cross the interval from the sender to the receiver, then there is no event seen. When the boson is captured at the receiver then the event occurs LOCALLY to the observer. However, such things as spooky action at a distance or the tunnel diode effect which are interval characteristics with no time component can be said to always exist in the space independent of TIME. That is how a radio wave front two light years across can have the same exact information effect across the two light years fronatage,  but the two observers at either end of the wave front need two years by radio to tell each other what they saw LOCALLY. Its not a hard concept to f

Hamilcar...

 

Why i have the feeling that even if i would post the best argumentation based on the most accurate study signed by Einstein himself. You would still say I am wrong because of a randomly picked information that you got from Internet, and that don't make you an expert. No I am not an expert, and in regard of all your previous post, it is clear that you are not one too.

 

Please show some humility and don't pretend to be something you are not.

 

PS, you don't have the power to say whats wrong or right, only proof have the power to do that. and they are kind of rare when you talk about top secret tech. Displaying your knowledge on various subject wont give you more credibility, specially if they are not related to the subject.

the hard thing is when others sprout nonsense, and you know from your own working knowledge that its just trite nonsense.  however, you're right, on borderline substantiation issues, there is no way that anyone with approp knowledge is going to provide anything else on the internet that isn't public domain.  often the naysayers see that as proof of life that they are right.  my view is that people who don't understand and yet trumpet on about capability are worth leaving alone.  there is no point in arguing with an idiot - they're usually better than you are at that particular skillset. :)
I reiterate my prev.  FJV, you may or may not accept my input, but SYSOPS knows where I work and has at times pulled threads I have commented on at my own request because I was requested by my seniors to retract said comments as they should not be presented on a public forum.  Similarly, I know that warpig is the real deal.  that may be an unfair advantage, and you (FJV)  may choose to ignore it if it doesn't fit your own proof of life requirements.  One thing I will clearly state is that warpig will not BS just to steer a debate in his favour.  He is straight up.  There are a few others in here who "colour" things to make a point.  he is not one of them.

Hint - the pretenders always steer away from the main debate, change the terms of debate, mea culpa and appeal to misunderstanding, get basic concepts wrong, don't understand first order principles and/or generally attempt to redirect debate to mask their own lack of knowledge.  Its a consistent pattern.

None of us are perfect in recall, but its patterned behaviour which spotlights those who have access to material and argue from relative strength - than those who read and write yet don't grasp the overall detail.

as an observation, and generally speaking.  pretenders are obsessed about platforms and see public stats as proof of life of tactical competency.