* Locating moving objects that could be anything that can move at a speed, with Cheap Cameras Without Using AI or Radar
Aerodynamics & engineering dictates that not many things can move at the speed/agility of a stealth fighter.
If you've got a radar system already in place, "Stealth" is just the ones that don't also pop up on the radar.
Presumably scattered radar receivers can detect faint reflections using similar correlation.
Is there a background microwave radiation at shorter wavelengths that could be made into a camera that could see through clouds too? microwave is too long wavelength to make a small camera.
> Presumably scattered radar receivers can detect faint reflections using similar correlation.
Yes, multistatic radars are already in service. An advance on the concept is that the active transmitter can be placed outside anticipated weapons range and those within range are merely passive receivers.
There have been proposals to build such systems that use 'oblivious' transmitter sources such as commercial radio broadcasts.
There was a project to extend/enhance the Kraken multi-SDR system that got yanked from GitHub, etc, because it tripped over ITAR in that it enabled passive radar.
ITAR assumes the US leads the world in technology, and actively prevents us from catching up if we don't.
Locating civilian, friendly and radar-visible aircraft is a solved problem though. So the distinction is only a matter of subtraction.
No, in fact this kind of technique absolutely puts a hard limit on the value of "stealth" devices, which are purpose-designed to evade a very specific technology that was a warfare-changing innovation in the 1940's but is now pretty cheaply replaceable by consumer junk.
The days of large manned aircraft are very much numbered, and armies that fail to see that are armies that are destined to lose.
Nah. That's such a naive and uniformed take. Signature reduction (stealth) remains broadly useful in that it makes air defense harder and more expensive. Anything based on cameras using ambient light is going to be of very limited use, especially at night or bad weather. And cameras can't be permanently installed on the open ocean.
The days of large aircraft are in no way "numbered". In order to have enough range to operate in the Indo-Pacific Theater that requires a lot of fuel, which implies a large aircraft (regardless of whether it's manned or unmanned). And while AI might eventually be effective at controlling combat aircraft, as of today that remains science fiction. So that means you need a person either directly in the combat aircraft, or actively controlling a large "loyal wingman" type drone from within line of sight (to ensure reliable communications in a hostile EW environment).
Indeed. And to add to your argument, AI may be effective in controlling aircraft for certain tasks some day. But there are still many that will either require a pilot there, or greatly benefit from a pilot there.
The "drones will replace everything" argument does not understand fully the missions required of combat aircraft. I won't be as foolish to say it could never happen. But to those who argue that, say, the F-35 should be canceled in favor of a drone, need to show how their drone can do what a manned strike aircraft like the F-35 can do.
And indeed, stealth was always a "make air defense more expensive" prospect. And while techniques have come out to counter some of the benefits of stealth, they all come with tradeoffs and added costs....which was precisely the point.
The question isn't whether One Specific Mission might be replaceable. It's whether a war fought with the 1000 F-35's needed to do that mission can be successfully prosecuted against an enemy armed with A Million Drones (because yes, 1000x is just about the cost delta we're talking about).
Consider: Germany in 1940 had absolutely no answer for French heavy armor. There were weapon systems along the Maginot line which the wehrmacht couldn't counter, and everyone knew it. They didn't need to.
You're not even asking the right question. There's nothing magic about cheap drones. They can be effective supplements to crew-served weapons and light artillery for close combat. But they lack the range to be effective in the Indo-Pacific Theater, and when drones are designed with sufficient range they stop being cheap. Besides the range problem, cheap drones also can't perform the full spectrum of missions like deep strike, ASuW, interception, etc.
For all its faults, the F-35 at least has sufficient combat radius and survivability to be relevant in a major near-peer conflict (although it desperately needs a new and more expensive adaptive cycle engine). Until a better platform comes along the choices are essentially the F-35 or nothing.
> And cameras can't be permanently installed on the open ocean.
If the camera can self-calibrate against known objects then camera motion can be adjusted for. Could use visible reference points (sun, moon, stars) with clear skies. Stars may be visible by a sensitive camera in daytime with good collimation (bottom of well story https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/star-search/ ). There are also radio sources (GPS satellites) or more SciFi solution of noisy stellar objects??
> And while AI might eventually be effective at controlling combat aircraft, as of today that remains science fiction
That's ridiculous, sorry. There are literally AI bots being banned every day on War Thunder! There are armed long-range drones under cross-continent satellite control already! Of all the things AI/automation might have trouble with, operating rigorously-documented aircraft systems and making shoot/don't-shoot decisions of a handful of targets is surely one of the easiest[1]. If you as a military planner don't do this because you think it's impossible, you're going to lose.
[1] I mean seriously: would you have an easier time making AI to fire a missile or sew a prom dress? Not even close, the dress is harder. And AI garment manufacture is reaching the market already!
Nah. That's such a naive and uniformed take. War Thunder is a highly simplified toy video game. It has no relevance to the real world.
Satellite control is also irrelevant. In any major near-peer conflict the reconnaissance and communications satellites will be the first casualties. The USA and China are currently engaged in an ASAT arms race. That's why they're back to planning and training to fight without satellite support.
Games are not remotely as complex of an operating environment as the real world.
If it's a clear day and the bottom of the airplane is painted blue, it could blend in with the sky. For that matter, didn't Wonder Woman have a transparent airplane?
Aha, better yet, it was invisible! https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Wonder_Woman%27s_Invisible_Plane
Yes, because if there's one thing computer vision solutions have historically had trouble with, it's being fooled by paint. The ludditism in this thread is shockingly strong.
CV systems absolutely do struggle with this...
Yes, and that's considered a bug to fix, and can be. CV systems are widely applied to find camouflaged and obscured objects! Literally every automated wildlife camera is proof that this is a silly point.
Call it whatever you want, lack of contrast is a physical constraint on your system and can be trivially leveraged. There's been an arms race between optical camouflage and detectors for the entire history of eyes.
It's not necessarily a game ender, but it's not something you can just wave away either.