COOL DUDE!

Nato+Eu+Japan South Korea Australia Philippines and New Zeland vs Csto Sco BRICS and North Korea

Usa vs Eu and China

How is the comment 2 days old but the video is new

If you're a country with bad RoE what is preventing you from firing before you identify an aircraft?

Quantum radar uses a sensing technique called quantum illumination to detect and receive information about an object. At its core, it leverages the quantum principle of entanglement, where two photons form a connected, or entangled, pair. The method works by sending one of the photons to a distant object, while retaining the other member of the pair. Photons in the return signal are checked for telltale signatures of entanglement, allowing photons from the noisy environmental background to be discarded. This can greatly improve the radar signal-to-noise in certain situations. But in order for quantum radar to work in the field, researchers first need to realize a fast, on-demand source of entangled photons. "The goal for our project is to create a robust source of entangled photons that can be generated at the press of a button," said Baugh. To date, quantum illumination has only been explored in the laboratory. The Government of Canada, under the Department of National Defence's All Domain Situational Awareness (ADSA) Science & Technology program, is investing $2.7 million to expedite its use in the field. The 54 North Warning System (NWS) radar stations, based in the Arctic and operated by the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), are nearing the end of their life spans and could need to be replaced as early as 2025. "This project will allow us to develop the technology to help move quantum radar from the lab to the field," said Baugh. "It could change the way we think about national security."

Camo is actually a bit more advanced than just that. The point of camo uniforms and painting is usually to obscure the outline of something so it becomes harder to recognize. It's not so much meant to blend in as it is to confuse our (or really our brains) eyes since the way we recognize objects is by finding contrasts and recognizing outlines. The camo makes that more difficult by providing a bunch of false contrasts that will throw off our object recognition. The human brain is an absolute master at recognizing patterns so that's why camo that just looks like nature usually isn't that effective because we'll still clearly recognize the human shape. This is also why digital camo makes sense, you'd of course never see square patterns like that in nature but if you're looking for a vehicle you're expecting to see shapes like that and providing some false shapes might make you think it's another vehicle. Though of course it also just looks cool and that's also pretty important for the parade ground.

But camo does make things invisible. JK

@@davidlow8104 Technically correct, anything is invisible if you're far away enough.

Excellent definition… it’s like a leopard, their stripes make them stealthy in the bush…. You don’t see them until it’s to late..

Stealth works like this, imagine trying to distinguish a dark skinned person with asian features out of four brothers from far away verses some one with light skin tone with pronounced facial features. First case is harder but doable, thing is in the past 20 years radars are able to see better and see more and have caught up. I.e. you wearing eye glasses.

BREAKING NEWS. QUANTUM RADAR DISCOVERED IN CANADA MAKES ANY STEALTH PLANE DETECTABLE.... GOOGLE IT. READ AND WEEP. ALL THOSE TRILLIONS WASTED.

@@IpSyCo Canada has invested $2.7m (£1.93m) into developing quantum radar - a new technology that would greatly improve the detection of stealth aircraft. The technology is being developed by the University of Waterloo to replace existing Arctic radar stations. Quantum radar can detect objects with a greater level of accuracy than conventional radar including stealth planes as it is impossible to hide from it. This mean the vast sums spent on stealth were for nothing. It makes use of quantum illumination - the process of isolating pairs of entangled photons. Canada and the US jointly maintain 54 North Warning System (NWS) radar stations in the Arctic, which act as the first line of early warning atmospheric air defence for North America. These radar stations are approaching the end of their life spans, and could need to be replaced as early as 2025. Several other countries are also interested in developing quantum radar, including China and Russia. In November, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Shanghai, announced that its scientists were developing a new type of spy satellite that would be able to "uncover" stealth aircraft.

Networked SAMs using fragmentation Warheads and with dual IR and Radar seekers on the Missiles counter many of the advantages you claim. Still too much emphasis put on interception by Aircraft. Highly mobile SAMs are also very good at providing Air Cover for advancing Ground Forces. On station 24x7. Not as good for the USA of course that is always involved in aggressive Wars well away from home rather than defending. My money now is on the Forces that operate an extensive system of Networked SAMs networked in with there Aircraft. That allows the Pilot to have very good situational awareness. He will be able to see everything the very powerful ground Radars in the network can see. AWACS can do the same but against a Peer enemy the AWACS have to survive. Of course SAMs can be taken out but I am certain it is going to prove costly. I thought we might see it in Syria but Russia seems determined to not take sides and not antagonize Israel when they attack Iranian assets in Syria. Overall Israel has stopped attacking Syrian Assets. Has the S300 in Syria ever been used? Obviously it is still in effect Russian even if supposedly given to Syria.

@@skippy5712 Even the best "anti-stealth" Radars "Networked" together have resolution cells to large for an optical sensor to scan and acquire a lock within the intercept time. For example if you network 3 NEBO variant radars (covering the different frequency bands) with an S-400 firing battery and tracking radar you would find that your effective firing distance with in service missiles against an F-35 would be around 10 km after factoring in jamming effect. If you add an IR seeker you will find that you soon come up against the IR seekers limited FOV and scan rate vs the large volume of airspace of the NEBO's resolution cell for a given range. Roughly, a 50% successful IR target track happens around ~30 km; including decoys, maneuvering and such that bring P:K to less than 15% even with a big ass 125kg proximity warhead. On top of this 30 Km is well within range of a multitude of A-G bombs, missiles and dedicated SEAD weapons from many nations. The Highly mobile aspect makes them harder to kill for sure but not harder to Neutralize. Standard SEAD practice is to launch HARM weapons so that they will arrive around the the radars estimated area at the same time the Strike package comes into range. This forced SAM fire control and Search radars offline lest the risk being destroyed by HARMs

@@loxachi1291 Maybe you are correct. Maybe not. There are still many aspects of the S400 Radars not known. Maybe we will find out one day?

@@skippy5712 There's still physical limits in regard to the radar technology. We can gauge the radar's operating band by the size of its T/R module. S-400's main component radars are 91N6 and 92N6, the former is a S-Band radar and the latter is a X/Ku-Band radar. Both radars use bands that the modern stealth aircraft can deflect/absorbs. The optional component, the Protivnik-GE use L-Band, which is more effective against stealth than the S-Band, but it's not really an "anti-stealth" radar despite the claim since the L-Band can be absorbed by modern materials. Only UHF and VHF radars, Russia have a lot of these: 55Zh6-1 Nebo UYe, Rezonans N/NE, 1L13-3 Nebo SV, 1L119 Nebo SVU, CETC JY-27, CETC YLC-8/8A, Vostok D/E, P-18-2/P-18M, Oborona-14 are all "anti-stealth" radars. Unfortunately (for Russia) that these radars are all as large as a building, and it'll take hours for them to disassemble and move, which makes them easy to spot and neutralize with cruise missiles and anti-radiation missiles, in the other words, they're all practically immobile, and they're not considered a component of the S-400.

@@mickeyg7219 I am no Expert. All I can rely on is what I read. You may like to comment. Quote: From Bulgarian Military Site. (Many others!) Optional elements of the S-400 (98ZH6E) include the 15I6ME-98ZH6E, with coverage of 30, 60 and 90 km beyond the 30K6E coverage. The 96L6E has a 300-kilometre (190 mi) detection range. The 40B6M is housing for the 92N6E or 96L6E radar. The Protivnik-GE is an anti-stealth UHF radar with a 400-kilometre (250 mi) range. The Moscow-1 passive sensor is ​2 1⁄2 times more effective than the Protivnik, with a 400-kilometre (250 mi) range Orion for a target-designation on-the-air defence system, and the Avtobaza-M and Orion+ Avtobaza adds high-precision detection. With the Range they have I can't see it would be all that difficult to deploy and disguise them reasonably well in a Networked System. They would not need one for every Battalion. Most of these units from what I can see are mounted on 6/8 Wheeler Trucks and can be deployed within minutes. You though obviously have a lot more technical knowledge than I have.

But the F-22 Lost against a Rafale

If you are referring to what i think you are that rafale and f22 started from a merge, as in they both knew about each other and had visual contact from the beginning. Stealth played no role. In real combat the rafale pilot would have to detect the f22 on its own, while the f22 enjoys almost free reign.

@@ravener96 every superpower get the radar to detect stealth aircraaft

@@thepny_chasseur_de_tricera5361 thats a pretty desk warrior thing to say. sure, i know about long wave radar too, but no airplane carries one, and cant use it for in air detection and engagement. best they get is that they can be vectored onto an area to try and spot them on infrared.

The updates won't even save I have to download it again and again 😢 help me

most games do that

Laughs in minecraft

My Minecraft version is from 2013

It's a psychological warfare, it's meant to dissuade the public opinion of the enemy's nation from supporting the procurement of stealth planes.

The Chinese have like 10 H-6's, until they get the H-20 i wouldn't call them a "fleet". And if Russia ever finishes the Pak-da I will eat my hat. And it's a big fucking hat.

@David Lee hmm even the long range radars will have trouble to detect them

@@Kaxcer The french transhorizon ground radar Nostradamus detected taking-off "stealth" planes over the ocean...

I'm no expert but my take is stealth isn't the end all be all of air warfare But it certainly gives a huge advantage to the stealth aircraft it's like being in a gunfight in the dark when your opponent has NVGs and a suppressed gun

@troll oracle yeah or they think everything Pierre spray says is gospel

That's a misunderstanding that occurred from movies. Although, stealth fighters don't really need anything else to help them avoid detection from enemy radars. Awacs, electronic warfare aircraft and drones are part of a bigger tactic that Air Forces tend to follow.

@@giorgosmavridis650 Jamming helps a lot. If you combine good jamming and stealth, you become nearly impossible to pick up on radar. Like, you'd be better served using the Mk1 Eyeball than a radar at that point.

Well, that would be the ideal use yes, but the price of upkeep on these 5th gen. planes is high enough for some new adopters to make it the only multi-role fighters in stock. It really depends on budget and military size.

@@artfact2 Honestly, the F-35 is competitively priced with modern 4th generation aircraft. Cost per flight hour is somewhat higher, but it's WELL worth the price of admission.

@D31 5M Really? I guess having more electronics than mechanics does help a lot. Still, their acquisition cost is huge so fielding many or mixed units will still be a budgetary wall. The bottom line is, I don't think that the complete replacement of fighters with F35's is a viable option, as some EU countries are planning on. Then again, we are more of a joint force dependent on each other worth more than the sum of the independent parts..

*McDonnell

F-15 variant is masterpiece

F-22 is superior for Air Superiority

What exactly do you mean by that because if you're just talking about pure air kills then no matter what the winner is gonna be a WWII air craft simply because that's the conflict with the most extensive air combat ever. If you're trying to make a claim that the F-15 is better than modern air craft then well it's kinda only a question of time before you're proven wrong.

riight. that is why the air force is purchasing more f15s and not buying stealth planes... oh wait

don't you dare mention other factors like training more people to fly and maintain the things only flyaway cost is real, everything else is just the military industrial complex ripping off the taxpayer

Solo Queue Pixy if you can make defense assets cheaper pls go ahead and compete with the big guys and make a case that technology that defeats other countries technology can be made cheaper. Pls go ahed you have my support.

@@rolandjosef7961 for my next trick, i will obsolete infantry by killing them with a very cheap weapon: bullets

It's crucial if the adversary has some pretty advanced air defense networks, in which case the chance for the presence of counters to stealth also increase so to a point it's self-defeating.

All stealth paint has an expired date. The skincare is expensive

BREAKING NEWS. QUANTUM RADAR DISCOVERED IN CANADA MAKES ANY STEALTH PLANE DETECTABLE.... GOOGLE IT. READ AND WEEP. ALL THOSE TRILLIONS WASTED.

The AESA on the F-22 is extremely hard to detect. And it has one of the best ESM suites in the world.

The B-2 is still pretty amazing

I'm pretty sure the the F-22 and F-35 both have low probability of intercept radars.

The radars on both the F-35 and F-22 are best and most advanced AESA radars in the world, they are EXTREMELY difficult to detect.

Cant lock a missile on "empty" sky though

IFF Tones Check won't work to detect a plane, only to confirm that an already detected plane isn't a friendly. Radar emission only works if the stealth plane is being dumb and radiating away with its radar. Communication emission only works if the stealth plane is being dumb and not following radio silence. It's pretty standard for even non-stealth planes to fly with zero communication until they are over friendly territory again. I get that stealth is not some magical invincibility shield, but I think you're oversimplifying the task of combating it.

@@nuclearattackwombat8390 hmmm....interesting points...

AM radar!?

NEWS FLASH !!!! NEWLY DISCOVERED QUANTUM RADAR IN CANADA CAN DETECT ALL STEALTH PLANES.....ALL THOSE TRILLIONS WASTED. CHECK IT IN GOOGLE...ETC..ETC...

The main problem with F-35 is that Industry has found ways to siphon off tons of money

@@MCAroon09 There's no way a mass produced stealth fighter made by one company was going to be made cheap. It's going to stay expensive until Lockheed starts licencing out production to competitors at a fair price as mediated by congress. But that would involve congress doing their job.

But can you see a jet at like maximum altitude?

@Mae ! Perhaps, but knowing that they are there is a massive part of defending against them in the first place. If you dont know they are there, how do you shoot them down?

@@Deccra With a decent set of binoculars, its quite easy.

You know every war the US has fought for decades has been fought almost exclusively at night, right?

@@VincentNajger1 Not with a decent set of clouds .

Canada has invested $2.7m (£1.93m) into developing quantum radar - a new technology that would greatly improve the detection of stealth aircraft. The technology is being developed by the University of Waterloo to replace existing Arctic radar stations. Quantum radar can detect objects with a greater level of accuracy than conventional radar including stealth planes as it is impossible to hide from it. This mean the vast sums spent on stealth were for nothing. It makes use of quantum illumination - the process of isolating pairs of entangled photons. Canada and the US jointly maintain 54 North Warning System (NWS) radar stations in the Arctic, which act as the first line of early warning atmospheric air defence for North America. These radar stations are approaching the end of their life spans, and could need to be replaced as early as 2025. Several other countries are also interested in developing quantum radar, including China and Russia. In November, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Shanghai, announced that its scientists were developing a new type of spy satellite that would be able to "uncover" stealth aircraft.

Why?

A better combo would be the LRASM and Meteor.

I think "invisibility" is a common misconception about stealth fighters. The point of stealth fighters isn't to be invisible; it's to be: 1) harder to detect in the first place, so that any interception attempts must be made with less early warning and therefore will be far less effective 2) harder to target, so that any weapons fired at the fighter will be less likely to hit Perhaps a better analogy: imagine you're in a gunfight against someone in near-pitch-black and you have night vision goggles and they don't. The fact that it's extremely difficult for them to see you doesn't make you invincible, but it certainly means that you have a strong advantage. Of course, your point about complacency stands. It's easy to think "my advantage makes me unbeatable" when you're really not unbeatable.

@@fi4re I think he didn't mean completely invisible. It's just easier say invisible rather than saying low observability or difficult to detect.

@RW I imagine you think I'm making a nitpicky semantic argument, but I'm not. I think, if you replace "invisiblity" with "low observability" (say, LO for short), it irreparably changes OP's argument. Basically, I think LO works for jet fighters like a camouflage uniform works for infantry soldiers. By no means has any infantry soldier in the history of mankind ever thought that their camouflage uniform made them impossible to detect. Further, no infantry soldier in the history of warfare has ever thought, "I'm wearing a camouflage uniform, so I don't need to work hard on the other principles of camouflage, such as concealment/cover, shape, shine, silhouette, etc". As far as I know, modern infantry soldiers still spend a significant chunk of their training time on how to camouflage themselves, despite having had many decades (some would argue, a century: subdued uniforms were first introduced in WWI, but I understand if you don't feel that plain old khaki counts as "camouflage") to grow complacent thanks to the privilege of camouflage uniforms. Despite all the advancements in camouflage patterns since Woodland became a thing, if anything, they might work even harder on camouflage than soldiers who fought wars before camouflage uniforms were invented. Likewise, I don't think any air tactician has ever thought, "they are LO fighters, so I don't need to worry about the other principles of air combat, such as flying low to avoid radar, using terrain to block line-of-sight with enemy radars, keeping the active radar on the jet turned off in order to avoid spotlighting oneself, etc". If anything, they probably think MORE about these things now than they ever have. If you watched the video, you would know that tacticians now need to concern themselves with thinks like, "what direction will the LO jet fly in order to reduce the apparent RCS to enemy radars?" I don't think tacticians worried as much about this in the days of the F4 Phantoms. In other words, if you're in a NATO country, rest assured that the leaders in your country's armed forces are probably not stupid. They know the strengths and weaknesses of their tech. If the enemy develops new technologies to "counter" LO jet fighters, your armed forces' tacticians will probably quickly develop new tactics to counter the counter. And if, in the worst case scenario, LO becomes worse than non-LO, I'm confident that NATO forces will simply switch back to building non-LO fighters.

@mohammad ezatzadeh why do you want to lose so baddly they already made a video about it

@mohammad ezatzadeh they already did a us vs iran, Us dominated

Iran really doesn’t have many allies, at all

We would turn Iran into a parking lot. F-ing sh!tskins

It wouldn't be US and their allies as most of their allies have already pulled out of the region after the US's latest shitshow. Like the US has only managed to place all of Europe on Iran's side by escalating tensions, at best they'll stay out of a conflict at worst they'll actively try to end it with a return to status quo.

Agreed, everyone seems to always think if a new tech comes in, it always mean its replacing something and never supplement or join with the older tech!

It'll be a supplement for the next several decades or so. However, eventually it'll be a default features for every jet fighters and bombers since stealth technology are getting cheaper. F-35A now costs less than Eurofighter Typhoon, and on par with Rafale. It's like cars, pretty much all new cars nowadays use automatic transmission and featured a USB port.

@@mickeyg7219 Well I get what your saying there and mostly agree with you. However with cars thats more down to preference and need and what the driver wants. For instance here in europe despite auto being around a lot of people such as myself who prefer manuels due to skill, dun and having a bit more extra control over the gears and it will most likey remain like that unless electric vehicles don't find a manuel substitute for electric. Also again with cars, although I use usb and bluetooth etc I can still and do use cd because I like to, I feel like I am not the only one.

BREAKING NEWS. QUANTUM RADAR DISCOVERED IN CANADA MAKES ANY STEALTH PLANE DETECTABLE.... GOOGLE IT. READ AND WEEP. ALL THOSE TRILLIONS WASTED.

What radars are those?

Older aircraft radars like the APG-77 can still track some targets out to 400km

@@zeffez8161 You cant lock AMRAAMs, sidewinders or their equivalents with optical sensors either

@@huntermurphy2148 The AMRAAM has a built in radar so you can fire it without having a lock, the AMRAAM will lock on itself when coming in closer.

@@bruceu2274 AMRAAM and all other ARH missiles are only going active when it's around 10 to 15 nautical miles away from the target. It also still needs a decent fire control solution which the radar can only provide data for the missile. Once the missile is launched, it needs midcourse updates so that's why ARH missiles have datalinks. ARH behaves like SARH in a way that the plane (or other platforms if it's CEC capable) has to continuously lock (or at least have enough resolution) on to the target during it's flight path. The way ARH missiles differ from SARH ones is the on-board radar that will provide the terminal guidance. Besides, radar seekers on AAMs are too small to provide enough power nor range to be Maddog'ed at BVR ranges.

@@bruceu2274 That didnt take anything from my point. Optical sensors are only good for observation and identification within very dangerous ranges for air to air combat.

Source for your outrageous claim? I don't think full s400 suite was in effect. Also s400 most likely wouldn't engage due to political reasons

OSSUS MAXXIMUS Defence updates channel other media sources that constantly talk about the conflicts in the Middle East, pilots tend to talk to other pilots about crazy shit they’ve seen so when they successfully dodge s400 radars they’re going to brag.

Israel killed 20 russian mercirnary shitheads operating Panzir systems. Hahahaha I laughed so hard. I love I$RAEL

@@zeuscaesar4845 oh, so because some pilot said they did? Russia has an agreement with Israel not to engage their planes as long as Israel doesn't attack any Russian troops

Completely braindead

Lot of people seem to think the videos in this channel are accurate and realistic. So if this channel was to make a video on United States vs North Vietnam in 1950's video, who would they think would win? There's your proof that KZfaq channels are useless in realistic scenarios.

@@RR-us2kp Well, these aren't realistic scenario. Binkov is comparing number to number, quality to quality. No modern war is worn through pure attrition, it involves a lot of things, including politics and logistics. On paper, the US should win against North Vietnam in an all-out war, but in reality, it's not an all-out war, no countries actually "fought to the last man." In a very unrealistic scenario, if both sides wouldn't give up, they'll literally fight until there's no one physically strong enough left to fight, and the US should have that advantage due to larger population and military assets. Remember that China lost in Vietnam as well, and the Soviet Union lost in Afghanistan despite having fought stronger enemies before. Saddam thought he could win against the US because the US lost to Vietnam, well, the Gulf War in the 90s prove that this is nothing more than a logical fallacy.

@@mickeyg7219 That's exactly why I said, these comparisons are idiotic.

If KZfaq existed back then, you would hear about the same type of things from the internet experts.

Russia had a massive development gap and doesn't even have the budget to catch up. They've been struggling to get AESA working on combat aircraft, developing serious stealth and so on. They basically stuck to what they were already good at without sufficient improvement to provide serious equivalents to the most modern western aircraft. Mainly, if you look at the F-35 and the insane amount of technology developed for the project (new pilot display helmet, sensor fusion, advanced data links, data processing and so on), it's very difficult to take the already underwhelming Russian claims seriously when they don't even materialize. Sorry to say, but they aren't the Soviets anymore. China has a gap in technology because they're catching up, but they are a very serious threat. Not quite there yet, but they have the ability to catch up and even surpass western powers. In this case it is infuriating to see people behaving exactly like they did with Japan.

Better intel

@@ivanlagrossemoule Soviet Russia is much different than Russia. Most weapon programs Russia use today have their R&D done during Soviet times. Today China got a lot of 5th gen research through data theft. China was suspected of being behind a reported 2009 cyber intrusion that resulted in the theft of a huge amount of design and electronics data on the F-35. Chinese copied a lot things from Russia especially the engines and US they copied stealth. They saved themselves the time and resources for R&D. US will still lead in stealth fighter next gen or two more, but eventually the gap will close. Russia is far behind, mostly due to lack of research funding.

When invading other countries.

You can't detect modern radars that easily. It's getting ever more difficult to differentiate a modern radar from the background noise due to constant frequency switching

@@sockaccount8116 It depends on the radar. Early warning radars that operates at lower frequency than the L-Band are immobile, or can't be relocated quickly - these kinds of radars can be seen with satellites imaging. While radar can switch the frequency, they're still limited to the range of bands they're designed to operate in. ELINT systems are getting smarter as well, so the electronic warfare is keeping up with the advancement in radar tech.

So here's proof that not everyone on KZfaq understands science.

@@RR-us2kp Neither has anyone heard about assymetrical warfare. Anyone know the USA's position on the world powerlist back in 1965? Inva/ I mean assist a poor, undeveloped peasant nation in their struggle against evil Communist invaders? Sure, we got the best and most modern military hardware in the world! What could possible go wrong?

The chinese are still making a mistake by not having guns on j-20 it means that in a fight any j-20's which are easiest to see from behind btw that try and leave when out of missles are easy pickings for f-22 and 35 that chase them down

@@anguswaterhouse9255 a gun on a plane is one of the most important things to have

@@hzchase7696 I said it was a mistake not to have them didn't I?

"AkTsHuAlLy It'Th UtHeLeSTh" -Your non-friendly local armchair general

@@massineben7198 actually it... I can't even read it

Lot of people seem to think the videos in this channel are accurate and realistic. So if this channel were to make a video on United States vs North Vietnam in 1950's video, who would they think would win? There's your proof that KZfaq channels are useless in realistic scenarios.

How are Belgian units made up? Are they segregated by language? Otherwise its impossible to tell

Damo2690 they are under joint command and in the same army units to bolster unity, though Dutch and french speaking units are usually stationed in respective language provinces to improve overall communication

Exactly, I think it's a little ridiculous that the USAF want's all their planes to be stealth.

@@uncreativename9936 Considering that the F-35A cost is now comparable to Rafale M, it's not financially impractical to turn all jet fighters stealth, not to mention that the USAF's F-35 is the cheapest variant. Stealth technology is getting cheaper while performing better, so eventually, all planes will be stealth. Remember back when computers are prohibitively expensive? Now it's pretty much ubiquitous.

@@uncreativename9936 helps with support and other missions, and give them the ability to react to unknowns, the enemy will often have radars you don’t know about

Canada has invested $2.7m (£1.93m) into developing quantum radar - a new technology that would greatly improve the detection of stealth aircraft. This mean the vast sums of 2 Trillion dollars spent on stealth was for nothing. The technology is being developed by the University of Waterloo to replace existing Arctic radar stations. Quantum radar can detect objects with a greater level of accuracy than conventional radar including stealth planes as it is impossible to hide from it. It makes use of quantum illumination - the process of isolating pairs of entangled photons. Canada and the US jointly maintain 54 North Warning System (NWS) radar stations in the Arctic, which act as the first line of early warning atmospheric air defence for North America. These radar stations are approaching the end of their life spans, and could need to be replaced as early as 2025. Several other countries are also interested in developing quantum radar, including China and Russia. In November, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Shanghai, announced that its scientists were developing a new type of spy satellite that would be able to "uncover" stealth aircraft.

Yes. It is difficult, but yes. Having multiple angles helps clear up the picture a lot - that's why the receiver is wide in the first place.

Identiying larger objects that are further away.

No real resolution since long waves dont reflect very well .

Longer radar waves are less affected by weather.

Fun fact #2 Serbs also shot duke Franz Ferdinand kicking off WW1, the results of which directly caused WW2 with a combined death toll estimated by some at over 100 million people. Well done Serbs, nice one.

@@David-dl6zg well technically it was a bosnian

First plane shotdown in North Africa during italo-turkish war by a rifle fire years before WW1.

Well first airplane was shot down in İtalo-Turkish war in 1912.

@@erichvonmanstein1952 No guys first airplane that was shot down was in Serbia

They can to a degree. AESA radars have a mode called LPI or low probability of intercept. It makes them harder to track even when turned on.

They can also just turn the radars off when they don't need it.

@@motmontheinternet when another fighter(s) is chasing you and looking to put you down from the sky ... you can afford to go with the radar turned off ? I just ask .

@@bulllea Yes, that's the whole point of networked fighters. The F-35 in particular is noted for this.

The new engine for J20 kinda solved that problem.

@rise infinite Yes, also some of the newer J20 also used WS10 with nozzle shape simlair to F35

You are correct sir . Both the F-22 and F-35 can dogfight more efficiently than previous aircraft with a full weapons load out.

The advantage is that once the weapons mounted externally are dropped either on target or to reduce weight for combat the plane has a significant advantage

@@antimatter4733 no it doesnt.. because it doesnt have weapons... without weapons its useless... F35 with full weapon loadout inside is capable flying and maneuvering within its capabilities..

@@JaM-R2TR4 I'm obviously talking about bombs and air to ground missiles not air to air missiles. Not to mention that in order to fire those missiles it has to open it's bomb doors which makes it a bigger target and wastes time.

@@antimatter4733 those doors are quite quick... can be opened and closed in seconds... so having spike of RCS for few seconds is not a big deal... you need continuous lock to be able to guide a missile... few seconds wont do anything... and even Air to Air missiles increase drag of airplane...

Binkov didnt mention Electronic warfare(I assume he will on the next episode). EW can easily blind(degrade) Surface to Air radars, making stealth planes even more deadly

@@Anderson_Hwang While EW can hide your position it also screams to anyone listening: "I am here". It just makes it difficult to determine exactly where "here" is.

@@Schlachti10 Isnt that the goal of EW? A well defended country would have early warning radars with long wavelengths that can detect stealth planes anyways, but unable to pinpoint them. EW makes it much more difficult for the defending country to know where "here" is.

@@Anderson_Hwang SEAD has two basic categories soft kill thru chaff and jamming and hard kill thru anti radiation missile or cluster bombs. what the arm chair generals that are totally behind the stealth aircraft or the invincible SAM system is neither is 100 percent fool proof. The side that will have the advantage will be the one that thinks outside of the box. Like Israel mounting Shrike ARM missiles on Sherman tanks and launched them in a surface to surface role on hostile SAM batteries or in 91using Apache gunships to take out air defense radars, it is a good bet the radar operators were looking for wild weasel launches when the hellfire missiles came raining down.

@@Anderson_Hwang Early warning radars are large and can't be relocated quickly, it'll be a priority target for cruise missiles/artillery/anti-radiation missiles strike in the early phase of the war - it'll a necessity to take them out before sending your aircraft deep into the enemy's territory in a modern war.

Not really. The wake that is created by fighter jets especially moving at high speed and low angles of attack is pretty small. Even if we had a way to detect that kind of disturbed air, there would be no way to differentiate it from regular turbulence. We can detect infrared signatures, but if you are within range to detect the heat behind a jet, you can use the same infrared sensors to see the jet itself much more easily.

to avoid both, planes usually fly slow (both stealth and non-stealth). the stealth ones mix cool air into their exhaust and pre-cool it with fuel. there's another video out there somewhere about the air disturbance, (sorry forgot the title) the summary is it's like trying to see a dragonfly skimming over a lake from 50-100m(150-300ft) away.

If you go supersonic over a populated area at low altitude you will be detected.

I mean you can in a way, if the plane is flying high enough contrails are pretty easy to spot and that was actually used during WWII, there are manuals for bomber crews that tell the crews to be aware of their contrails for example. Is it useful today though? Not really especially because the easy fix is just fly below that altitude. Plus you can avoid creating contrails in other ways. In all other cases it's basically impossible to detect anything other than engine exhaust at any range especially because there could be so many false positives, turbulence just happens in the atmosphere and there are also bird flocks and other flying things.

This is not something unique to the Gripen, low cost aircraft with limited but effective capability have existed for decades. In the earlier years the US F-5 was a good example, and in the modern joint Chinese-Pakistani JF-17 is very similar to the Gripen. One thing to note is, the Su-57 has the largest RCS of any of the known stealth aircraft in service with any nation, this means its much easier to detect. One thing to note though is the F-35 has even more powerful ECM equipment, along with our most advanced AESA radar, EOTS, DAS, and Link 16 datalink, which makes it as many wouldnt like to believe the most powerful and advanced airborne weapon system in service. The Gripen is good but it cant combat the F-35, they are in different leagues. P.S I love the Gripen, I love cheap mass produced aircraft, just stating the facts.

@@Citizen_Snips1 I can not compare ECM kW between F35 and Gripen E since the it highly classified and data is unavailable. Saab has made some info public about the new anyway visable antennage and increases in overall electrical power and cooling power. Datalinks is something Saab has worked a lot with for decades, it was quite a force multiplier for Viggen. It was not invented in the F-35 program.

@@magnusredin6991 I'm aware it was not, the first true datalink was on the Saab 35 Draken actually. I was not saying datalink was anything new, just that the F-35 has the most modern Link 16 based datalink system that could be found. And on the subject of ECM, from what we know the F-35 puts more power into the ECM than the Gripen does. And because of the low RCS of the F-35, it needs significantly less power to be sufficient. Combine the low RCS with the high output and you get one hell of a package. The Gripen has advantages though like its jamming pod, or like its ECM being suited against AESA radar.

Was gonna say this myself - not including active stealth leaves out the last 20 years or so of deployed technology. Of course, this may have been an intentional omission from an otherwise informative and comprehensive video. TY!

"Active stealth" is just a buzz word to make ECM systems look more significant. They are useful, yes, but they can't replace low radar cross section. 1) The plane will be perfectly visible. ECM makes it harder to lock on weapons from long range but it doesn't give "silent strike" capability. 2) Modern AA missiles have "home on jam" capabilities.

@@vantuz8264 No it´s NOT a buzz world. You actually makes the radar not seeing you. The missiles can´t "home in to the jamming". Radar guided missiles home into radar not ECM. The AREXIS EW suite can also use spoofing, make the radar see targets where there are none....etc... Look at 1.50 in this video... saab.com/gripen/our-fighters/gripen-fighter-system/gripen-e-series/gripen-e/infact Gripen E has more capabilities then F18 growler..the AREXIS EW suite is the only EW suite far that uses the latest GaN technology.

@@JorgenPersson-jo4sc >>You actually makes the radar not seeing you. For a plane without stealth capabilities there are only 2 options: 1) Somehow "intercept" the incoming radar wave and redirect it. I'm not sure if it's even physically possible. But if it's possible, ECM station must know in advance about incoming waves: their direction, frequency, power. Modern radars automatically change their frequency, making such knowledge impossible. 2) "Blind" the radar by transmitting a very strong continuous signal on the same frequency. However it requires capabilities to transmit on the same frequency (small antenna can't transmit long waves) and a lot of power. More power than the radar itself needs. Needless to say that this mode makes the plane vulnerable to homing on jam. All other modes don't make the plane invisible at ranges where stealth planes are invisible. Just more difficult to lock. But "difficult" doesn't mean "impossible". >>The missiles can´t "home in to the jamming". What is your proof? Home-on-jam capabilities are declared for many modern AA missiles such as R-77 or AIM-120. >>Look at 1.50 in this video... Page not found. Check the link.

hard to say.. F117's have been targetted and hit by SAM's historically so stealth is useful but not invincible.

@@jimdickson919 nighthawks are almost 40 year old aircraft. The stealth technology used on it was out of date by the time one was shot down. the f22 and f35 are in a completely different league

@@declanmcnamara2223 Yeah, the Nighthawk was so much work to make, and it was still obsolete when it was used.

It was already shown in the Gulf War, so lets take a look back in The first gulf war, Iraq had the largest Air Defence network any Airforce had to face in recent history. Baghdad alone had 522 SAMs comprising of about 65 SAM batteries, giving it twice the density of most heavily defended targets in Eastern Europe at the time. The F-117 was the first aircraft to hit targets in downtown Baghdad during the opening night. It was the only aircraft to strike targets in Baghdad but days into running a large Air Campaign with significant success in degrading Iraqi Air Defence the USAF planners decided to send legacy aircraft to hit targets in Baghdad for the first time, mainly because F-117 was limited with a payload of only two precision guided munitions (PGMs) and only 36 F-117 were deployed in the theatre. So on Day 3 of the conflict a large strike package comprising of 75 non-stealthy aircraft was created (Package Q strike) - from F-4G (Wild Weasels) to 56 F-16s and 14 F-15E were backed by EF-111 (dedicated EW aircraft). Their main target was Baghdad Nuclear Research facility. This mission failed with the loss of 2 F-16. Later a small group of just 8 F-117s were responsible for successful re-attack of the same target. While there were a number of problems with Package Q strike that taught crucial lessons, above all it highlighted the fact that Iraqi Air Defences in Baghdad were still lethal and resulted in the leadership reverting to their previous decision of restricting air strikes over Baghdad to F-117 only Throughout the month long campaign the F-16s suffered only 3 losses - two of them were over Baghdad on the third night. What do you think would be the attrition rate if it had to continue attacking targets in Baghdad? That is by far the biggest strategic value of Stealth aircraft - they allow you to hit targets inside heavily defended airspace without loosing a sizeable chunk of your fleet and do so with little external support. "In simulated exercises we lost a lot of airplanes in scenarios with 4th gen. airplanes. We put in both our E-6 Prowlers [EW platform], Hornets & Harriers. That changed when we brought 5th gen. airplanes, specifically F-35.” “It’s not just a fighter threat, it’s a very high-end SAM threat. I ran a drill when I was a Weapons School CO, we lost half the team [comprising 4th gen platforms] and we didn’t hit any targets. In the simulation everybody comes back with a long face, talks about how bad the day was. In the real world they’re not coming back.” - Lt. Gen. Davis. Former Commanding Officer of USMC’s Weapons School (MAWTS-1). (HASC February 2017 Testimony)"

Arguably, you don't even need the control ship. It doesn't take an expensive CPU to just fly a pre-programmed course. Of course, things get expensive in a hurry if you want your drones to do more than just act a simple decoys!

It would be a good idea, but if you don't know where the plane is you don't know where to hit their skin. Only a sandstorm or blizzard could help you with that huge volume to cover You're describing a SAM system with the metal pieces hitting aircraft

No it's a bad idea. That's what Saddam did over Baghdad, the planes just stayed above it and laser bombed them to hell and back.

Modern guided missiles already function a bit like this. Missiles are not designed to hit the target, as that would be incredibly hard. Instead, they are designed to explode in the general vecinity of an aircraft and aim to kill it with the massed flak from the explosion.

Missiles already do that for decades, it's called blast fragmentation, but it's short-ranged. You still need to be able to see something before you lob missiles at, and seeing is not enough, you need to get a lock too. For your idea, it's not workable since metals would also create a disturbance on your radar. The most effective way to counter stealth is to just deploy as many radars as you can, and invest in a lot of interceptors. Fighting stealth aircraft, contrary to popular belief, isn't cheap. What stealth planes do is reduce the detection range, so you need to buy more radars to cover the gap. Targeting radar, which use X and C-bands suffer the worst.

Canada has invested $2.7m (£1.93m) into developing quantum radar - a new technology that would greatly improve the detection of stealth aircraft. The technology is being developed by the University of Waterloo to replace existing Arctic radar stations. Quantum radar can detect objects with a greater level of accuracy than conventional radar including stealth planes as it is impossible to hide from it. This mean the vast sums spent on stealth were for nothing. It makes use of quantum illumination - the process of isolating pairs of entangled photons. Canada and the US jointly maintain 54 North Warning System (NWS) radar stations in the Arctic, which act as the first line of early warning atmospheric air defence for North America. These radar stations are approaching the end of their life spans, and could need to be replaced as early as 2025. Several other countries are also interested in developing quantum radar, including China and Russia. In November, the Chinese Academy of Sciences, in Shanghai, announced that its scientists were developing a new type of spy satellite that would be able to "uncover" stealth aircraft.

Yea but fascinating...

That will make the last day of islam

Why ? Nobody would survive that scenario. It would be like 1914 but with nukes.

Islam will be the last standing Religion on this Planet, If You cant say something nice, You better keep Your Mouth Shut...

Yeah you send in the f-22s to get airsuperiority then the cheaper fighters in mass to obliterate tergets

Hahaha

Up, not of

I don't know what you saying?? to hit fragmentation of warheads it must be guided very close with in and SAM Missiles Seeker don't see them

@@user-ym8ic8r Once close a normal SBand Radar seeker can see Stealth Aircraft. Same with IR. They all emit heat. The ground radars will pick up Stealth Aircraft hundreds of km away. Not hard if they are all networked to work out where they are heading and the speed they are travelling etc. They call it Triangulation. Network Computers will work all that out. They will even have a good idea of its elevation. The Radars on say a S400 are multi Band. As they get closer there VHF Radars can be queued onto the incoming and track the Stealth Aircraft even more accurately. Russia claims they can guide there Missiles using VHF very close to a stealth target. Once close the S Band Radar or IR seeker on the Missile will pick up the target. Stealth Aircraft are not invisible.

@@skippy5712 We all know about that. and i'm saying is what you said "fragmentation"

@@skippy5712 they have heat signatures but they are reduced just like their radar cross section

Ok Id say Skippy you havent been reading the news from 2019 - 2018. [New release on the history of the F117 came out about its Iraq sortie's and Serbian misadventure.] 1. Against IRAQ "desert Storm" the F117 was expected to lose over 5% of its planes in each sortie and lost none in over 1350 sorties. They had no idea how good they were against the S300 and S400 /Russian made radars in IRAQ but they kicked ass. 2. The UK proved that 4th Gen planes can effectively Kick ass against the Modern Russian S300 and S400 radar passive systems in Syria when they took out the Weapons munitions factories in Syria (job done).. (who knows how good the UK F-35 are) 3. Early 2019 IRAN were boasting about how they were going to build Nukes and had nuclear grade uranium. Israel were saying we have to invade before they do this.. Israel were being reported as having been flying over IRAN for 2 weeks. The local IMAM for IRAN only found this out after reading a Kuwaiti newspaper.... IRAN promptly sacked its Air force General and restarted denuclearisation talks with France. The French plane Desault is over US$300 million each. At $110million is so cheap and has better upgrades than the Desault. I like the Desault, but the Allied buck goes a lot further and has far more capability...

Open and full conventional war doesn't happen anymore in nowadays global circumstances. The threshold happens in cyberwar, satellites and these related strategic levels... everything else falls down like a domino after that.

@@malokegames Not true? Why all of the military spending then? You are correct about the importance of cyber warfare.

@@flywheel9759 Just to maintain the whole chain of things running and covered without gaps. They support and are not meant to prevail or duel between enemy themselves but to fill the gaps of the whole structure and escalate the responsibility of victory to the higher layers. Conventional conflicts are each time more limited to asymmetrical battles and guerrillas.

@@malokegames Pawn moving is always asymmetric, moving knights, bishops and rooks require symmetry in tactics and strategy to win

@@flywheel9759 Yes, and the paws&Knights and so on do not capture automatically, so they just need to assure they can execute their primary function to support the main scheme. But I mean asymmetric between the opponents, in that highly technical combats are not going to happen between superpowers because in their case thing will be solved in a higher level, while in the asymmetric one there will be no need to such complexity since the enemy will, for instance, not even have an air-force or something like that...

depends, if the non-stealth has powerfull and advanced radar it might have the upper hand since its more manovoruble etc.

If you ask me, it depends on who gets the jump on who. A stealth plane would have a much easier time getting close and behind their enemy than a non-stealth, but with the reduced detection, agility, and response a stealth plane might have a much harder challenge escaping.

@@EmperorLionflame Actually, the Gripen does not have digital stealth - SAAB does not make first-strike weapons (officially) - but it has digital anti-missile/anti-tracking interference and extensive cyberwarfare suites. Aside from being made from composites that don't reflect RADAR too well, you'll see a JAS-39 Gryphon plain as day: but your missiles won't, the targeting on your autocannon will get interfered with, and early-detection systems will be filled with false contacts. If you ask me, what makes the Gripen great is that it can defeat an enemy squadron without firing a shot. As for evolving detection, I don't know about other countries but the early-detection arrays of the swedish navy and air force are being upgraded to electro-magnetic, thermal, and electronic tracking. Merely engaging their navigation RADAR is a dead giveaway for American and Russian planes, so is the hot exhaust plume they leave behind as well as the electronics that make the planes fly in the first place. But as detection evolves, so does stealth. It probably won't be long until we start seeing planes with both RADAR, thermal, and electronic reduction, as well as extensive ECM take to the skies. As for combat analysis, I stand by my original point: if you can ambush your enemy, stealth is great, but a stealth plane has no other options. Conventional fighters with electronic warfare has all the options. A stealth plan can be out-run, out-gunned, out-maneuvered, and out-climbed by non-stealth designs.

@@EmperorLionflame That pretty much summs it up, yes. Going to take a decade or two for stealth to catch up.

​@@DavidBarkland i like how real life is balanced so that stealth aircraft have minmaxed entirely for passive anti-detection measures and somehow cannot maneuver nor use ECM of their own while non-stealth planes will literally search the entire sky at once with IRST that isn't attenuated by anything whatsoever because quantum mechanics

I think it means "let's disintegrate whatever that thing is and then identfy it from its wreckage!"

Ace of Spades to be fair, the Pantsir is a point defense asset and the one you referred to seemed to have exhausted its ammunition when it was attacked, so even if it was on it would not make much difference. In fact, it might be the reason why it was turned off the first place.

Not completely realistic. It ignores any advances made in VHF Guidance etc. and other Radar enhancements made in Russia and China. There secrets! This video simply assumes the status quo. Personally I don't think they will have remained the same. Russia is not developing longer and longer range SAM missiles with dual seekers and fragmentation Warheads unless they can effectively guide them to an Aircraft like the F35 that is going to become very prolific over the next decade. Even if they only going to use the long range Missiles against AWACS detecting and guiding Missiles to them will be one of there main priorities. The way they have completely Networked there SAMs and Military Radars and even there Civilian Radars points to this. If I remember correctly they also have developed a bolt on system that will bring all there fighter aircraft into the network. They will have there counter. If they did not I am certain they would be making Stealth Aircraft a much bigger priority than they are.

I can answer for the gun part. Our bombers actually used to, however in order to counter jets these rear facing guns needed radar. Now this sounds fine on paper, but during Desert Storm it was revealed that friendly radar guided guns, and enemy radar guided guns, don't look too different to a HARM missile. As such, during the war a B-52 Stratofortress was damaged by a friendly anti-radar missile. The crew of the B-52 survived, and later renamed their aircraft "In HARM's Way" after the incident. Furthermore, all rear guns were removed from B-52's in service.

All medium range russian missiles can do that

A couple reasons. For starters, we don't do dogfights anymore, and haven't done so for over half a century. Planes fire their missiles from beyond visual range, then turn around and go home. Second, the friendly-fire risk is too high. Lastly, it's a problem of momentum - backwards-firing missile is going to waste a lot of time and fuel flying the wrong way as it works to overcome the momentum imparted to it by the plane that launched it, so the effective range is going to be worse than an equivalent forwards-firing missile. Not a good trade in an era of BVR combat.

F-35 can thanks to DAS. It doesn't need to maneuver, just shot the missile. A 360° off bore sight missile.

Me too. One on sculpture and on performance

Hahaha