WHAT is THAT blip on the RADAR ? | How do I know if it is Friend or Foe?

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Support me on Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/millennium-7-history-technology Support me on Patreon www.patreon.com/Millennium7

[@ddtvtv9459]

,It's possible to make a home made radar?

[@P90F55]

DCS player. Guilty as charged. This channel has help me win many missions. Radar notching, missile performance, delta wings, IFF, radar off, etc..

[@VulpisFoxfire]

The real fun happens when both sides are making use of the *same* aircraft....

[@cannonfodder4376]

I was surprised by the topic but the explanations were fantastic. Both technical and tactical you knocked this video out of the park.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Way too kind!

[@trcostan]

Along time ago I built a small Doppler radar for physics class,,, fans turned out to be the best thing to point the radar at. You could even count the blades looking at the FFT 😏

[@ad2181]

Suggest a video on Ground Mapping RADAR, Synthetic Aperture RADAR and Moving Target RADAR.

[@Pincer88]

I second that request. Very interesting topic.

[@Ayooluwaigandan]

I third that request

[@lbh2776]

Me forth on that request

[@chengong388]

Puts into perspective how enormous of an advantage you have when you play video games simply because you know EXACTLY where all your units are at all times.

[@Holuunderbeere]

Yes, not one game managed to replicate the real thing when it comes to commanind troops

[@hphp31416]

real warfare is slowly geting closer to information level of games

[@Holuunderbeere]

@@hphp31416 yeah but still there are Huge differences, time itself is a factor too

[@wiryantirta]

I play Arma. Getting blue-on-blue'd in part of the fun.

[@dariozanze4929]

It makes a huge difference in airsoft as well. On big terrains you have to have a commander which knows where the players are and has a radio, otherwise the whole thing becomes random acts of violence coupled with a healthy dose of blue on blue. In CQB knowing where your teammates are means that when you spot another player you can instantly know if he is the enemy.

[@thelovertunisia]

Mediterranean humour the best. Bella Italia.

[@vickydroid]

Bravo, had to play it back and forth a few times, guess that's what the F15 pilots were alluding to when they spoke in hushed tones about being able to identify particular enemy from their radar signatures during the Gulf war. Also thought you were going end it with the oldest line in warfate...."who goes there"

[@Jester-uh9xg]

Speaking of: I'm pretty sure the F-15C specifically did not require visual ID because it was the only plane at the time with NCTR. There were many kills done BVR.

[@vickydroid]

@@Jester-uh9xg I imagine that NCTR implementation and effectiveness is still quite classified, although I was surprised to hear that the F15 appeared to be out resolving (recognising) the E-3 with their radars. Alas against known threats like the Soviet era MIGs.

[@Karl-Benny]

@@Jester-uh9xg Actually there is a KZbin Video off a F-15 Pilot explaining they had to do visual target within 20 km as not to shoot down a F-117 so they could get them on radar or infrared

[@Jester-uh9xg]

@@Karl-Benny Would make sense because the F-117 stealth characteristics would make it hard to perform NCTR on.

[@hillarysemails1615]

12:40 and 14:00 I'm glad that you included these 2 parts. IFF is a "quick and dirty" way to ID a target. But there are SOOOO many things that can go wrong, and VID (visual) has many problems also. So passive target ID using ambient ELINT from OTHER radar and radio source emitters is a stealthier way to ID a target, without lighting up one's OWN radar and risking detection. Also, USA/China/Russia have all had some success with retro-engineering IFF circuits and replicating "commercial" IFF/transponder codes to fool interceptors into thinking that a B-1B is actually a Concorde, etc. Waveform ID can invalidate such false ID and show a RIO that the Bogie is clearly NOT what it is claiming to be.

[@thelovertunisia]

I'm no expert just a military history amateur. I guess since the 1960's, although hardware has improved like the resolution of sensors etc, most of the improvement, as you correctly mentioned is software, especially digital Almanacs where statistical information is compiled to establish 'typical profiles or signatures' for any given type of flying object.

[@bodan1196]

The development of software, is similar to how evolution functions, just staggeringly faster.

[@SCUBAelement-Intl]

Thank for the information, your vids pack a serious amount of technical material that would take many hours to read. Combined with your graphs, the explanations make sense and the applications are clear. You RoKK!!

[@Thoran666]

Great video. I didn't understand half the math shown but I now have an idea how radar targeting works and it's a lot more complicated than I thought.

[@kathrynck]

Didn't expect this topic. Really good video! (also one of the best Otis skits yet) also, kinda helps to explain why they didn't want to sell F-35's to Turkey if they were going to buy S-400's, given that S-400's have uh... a data privacy EULA similar to a smart phone.

[@williamampuero2841]

Stellar presentation on a complex process.

[@Phoenix_VR]

1st time finding about this channel.....it is a talent to be able to explain in such an entertaining video a complex topic like that :) respect....subbed for more.

[@petersmythe6462]

There could be other, non-millitary applications of this I think. For example detecting the species of birds on radar or aquatic animals on sonar.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Yes, there are a lot

[@formateuramzal1567]

high quality content as always, could you do a video about the b-21 ?

[@brokula1312]

My man, you nailed it again.

[@fenrir834]

well explained.

[@hangie65]

Excellent "ATR 101" video. An education for me. Thanks!

[@robertoflores1270]

Hello. Thank you a very interesting video. There is a typo in the Doppler shift formula at minute 4. It is easy to detect because the expression is not dimensionally homogeneous. If should read f_d = - 2 V / lambda. On the other hand, the formula for the micro-Doppler effect at minute 5:30 is correct.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Yes, you are right, it is a mistake. I just copied and pasted and when I realized it was too late.

[@Pincer88]

Very interesting again! That's a hell of a lot of technological effort going into deconflicting and lifting 'the fog of war' Carl von Clausewitz recognized. And I imagine it takes extremely sensitive radar receivers to get all these radar-return sets as refined as possible, probably even taking into account atmospheric conditions (and maybe even solar radiation in the RF spectrum) as well. Or - in the case of 4th generation fighters especially - taking into account all possible configurations (weapon loadout, fuel tanks). What I didn't realize before but becomes clearer now, the price of the F-35 for instance probably includes all the effort mainly the US puts into keeping this threat database up to date for all theaters of possible operations. And since that is a closely guarded secret, I can also see why so little countries get to own the software behind it. Keeping that highly prized intelligence as centralized as possible, reduces the risk of cyber theft. Something possibly the Chinese have tried when - as sources say - they hacked into the Lockheed Martin database a couple of years ago. It does make me wonder though, if the RF spectrum cannot be shut down in a certain area for a period of time, for instance by an atmospheric low yield nucleaur blast creating an EMP with a ‘transient radiation effect on electronics’ (TREE) as a result. The more I think of that, the more I think potential adversaries will find that prospect operationally seductive. And that's a pretty erie outlook if you ask me.

[@graemedicks3139]

Excellent content really enjoyed !

[@JohnDoe-eo8gi]

I love these videos but the audio could definitely be improved

[@jhill4071]

Automatic Target Recognition (ATR) ==> a pilot with 20-20 vision and a good nights sleep. Terrific just terrific.

[@vevenaneathna]

i think its worth pointing out the two times civilian air liners were shot down, once an iranian flight flying over a us navy ship in their gulf, and a more recent time the ukranian flight leaving tehrah a few years ago following iranian strikes on US base in iraq. the first event, there was a lot of documentation about how the target was misidentified momentarily and i think this is a rare (however now dated) example of a small amount of transparency about the US target rec. technology at the time. im sure it has come a long way since then. the 2nd example, im not sure iran has any substantial radar targ rec tech. I believe they were trying to copy the success of the yugos in downing what they thought was a B2 and there wasnt time to check if it was a civilian target. this all brings up stealth again. very small radar return has to mean those micro dopplers are so small that theyre potentially undetectable depending on recieving radar size. just some thoughts. thx for the upload

[@anselmdanker9519]

Thank you for a great presentation

[@michaelguerin56]

Great video. Lucid and highly informative. Thank you.

[@airlitex6488]

ATR - "the answer to the oldest question since the beggining of human conflict....."(that ending killed me! 😄😄😄). Brilliant content once again.

[@Kaizzer]

... covered by a bark :D

[@nekomakhea9440]

Microdoppler identification kinda sounds like matching sonar signatures in Cold Waters, but automated and in the RF band

[@alvaropenen2118]

When i was studying Radar technologies in a Spanish university someone tell me about the imaging radar using a radar resolution cell smaller than target size in fact if the resolution cell is 1/5 of the target size is easy to calculate what exactly aircraft you are watching, that implies every single return of the transmited signal is a bit different from the next one and it can send information about the different rcs on the nose, the middle or the tail of the target airplane, of course there are mathematical models of all enemy targets of some iluminating directions, that is a way to check what aircraft is watching on the radar, i think this approach is quite simple in comparission that you describe, it also can change with the external load of the airplane (weapons or fuel tanks), never the less it is not impossible to calculate and modeling. Good video!!

[@MajinOthinus]

very interesting vidoe on a topic that is indeed very seldomly discussed.

[@mban2748]

Horse and Hound? Good one.

[@hanznel8488]

As an electrical engineer I have huge respect for engineers working in this field.

[@hanznel8488]

This was probably the reason Turkey was removed from the list of F35 operators after they acquired the Russian S400 system as it would have allowed the Russians to easily get signatures of the F35 as the Turks would have flown around their F35's and scanning with the S400 radars from multiple axes.

[@lyndondowling2733]

IFF Recivers can be set to all modes all codes, only non squawkers or those with U/S IFF systems will not show as an IFF response.

[@oliversmith5522]

Could you perhaps do a video like you did for the rafale on the F/A-18c? Thanks love your channel

[@Ni999]

It's Otis day! 🎉🙌 And good job on this one, tough subject. 👍

[@darkofc]

😊😊 Very interesting episode (as always) - thank you very much ! 👍 (and explained in a way that Penny would explain to Sheldon - love it ! 😉)

[@rxsquared]

Amazing as always! Thank you for sharing!!!

[@petersmythe6462]

I wonder if adversarial examples have been developed to try to jam this system? E.G. A small deployable device which waves around in the wind and mimics the micro-doppler return of a completely different aircraft type? Or simply creates uncertainty and confusion as to the nature of the object, with the algorithm 96.5% confident that the object is a helicopter moving at mach 2 or whatnot. We know that there are adversarial examples for AI image recognition and such where some small marker can make a computer identify any image as a panda or whatnot.

[@shi01]

Well, the Rafale and Typhoon can deploy towed radar decoys. I don't know if they can mimic a different aircraft, but they certainly can confuse radars enough that they either lock on at the decoy or even think that there are more than one aircraft.

[@C12unit]

I am assuming that a very fast processor to compute the complicated alogrithms from inputs, either IR or Radar. will be needed. USSR were the first to develop missiles so must have made very fast processors as early as 1960's and could have been at forefront of the IT revolution had they developed a market economy.

[@sonarbangla8711]

The problem seems to be that of identifying who is who. The Chinese do seem to have achieved mastery equal to the west.

[@saksham_agarwal]

great video.

[@Native_love]

So you take the coefficient sets of data from the aircraft radar (radar cross section) unless it's an F-35, the AWACS data, the Laser radar, the infrared scanners, and the speed of the aircraft and you get a definitive answer.

[@karanrai6262]

Quality!!!!!

[@ahmadmersarani3767]

How automatic-target works in electronic devices?. And how automatic-radar easily monitor the target in using tv screen device... respect from Bangsamoro Philippines..👍👍✌️✌️😂🇵🇭☑️

[@yayayayya4731]

Great video! Would you recommend any books to learn about RADAR?

[@shaider1982]

0:53 well, at least Otis did not try to post on Friendster or Multiply🤣

[@vishmonster]

Well I don't know anything about that but if you're playing Wargame Red Dragon you better micro your radar AA on and off or else the enemy SEAD will splat all your fancy (and expensive) RAD.

[@OneMoreDesu]

Never been this quick before XD

[@miltonzhang947]

Great content, automatic recognition from radar signal is magical, just like your video sir. BTW, may I have a link for the video used starting from 8:30? That would be awsome man.

[@jonwesick2844]

I think there's a typo in your Doppler formula at 3:50.

[@thelovertunisia]

This shows that dogfights are FAAAR from over.

[@kathrynck]

Very true, from the standpoint that close range engagements are definitely unavoidable. But high off-boresight lock, synthetic lock (basically a "highly informed mad-dog release"), and helmet mounted display systems, really have killed the gen-4 style of dogfight. Until you run out of missiles anyway, then things work like in the movies again.

[@thelovertunisia]

@@kathrynck You are right but this is more true in low scale warfare. In a total war against an industrialised opponent, the Fog of War created by massive air and missile operations would preclude BVR because the risk of friendly casualties would be very high. Don't forget that a modern opponent can hack and jam communication networks and reduce situational awareness. In the end a real war between equal powers will always be fought with blood and iron as military historian John Keegan said. High tech is only useful in the opening hours of a big war until total chaos begins or in special operations.

[@kathrynck]

@@thelovertunisia Well, they say no plan survives first contact with the enemy unscathed. I actually tend to plan my daily life around that, with plenty of reserve and flexibility to deal with Murphy's law. My bf says I under-plan things, I just think i'm being tactically flexible :P hehe On the other hand, clever plans win wars. And WWII demonstrated a situation where rapidly escalating tech was a dominant factor. Similarly, I remember in 1991, before Desert Shield became Desert Storm, there was a lot of talking heads on the TV fretting over the military strength of Iraq, based largely on sheer numbers of lower tech but robust hardware and manpower. And I was like, "no, it's not going to be a fair fight at all, the tech is going to make it so lopsided it will be cruel." There was a betting pool on the ground war. Most bets ranged from weeks to months. I bet "4 days" which was widely ridiculed. I won the bet obviously, only missed it by 4 hours. I didn't account for general Schwartzkopff doing such a wide flank. I kinda thought they'd punch a hole and flank through, rather than send half the forces all the way around. Sometimes, things work like you think they'll work ;) It's just that you can't take it as a foregone conclusion that they will.

[@thelovertunisia]

@@kathrynck I totally agree. Even futurology if so to say is governed by the fog of war hh. In WW2 Russian quantity exhausted the technologically superior Wehrmacht. During the Iran Iraq war, the Iranians managed to stop Saddam with human waves. Hezbollah managed to stress Israel if not in a conventional war. So all options are on the table. NB: I do it exactly like you in my life hh I always allow for extra time and money for unforeseen events. My wife says I worry too much but then i 90 percent of the cases I turn out to be right lol. Greetings from Tunisia Madam.

[@Sir_Godz]

Yes we all remember that famous Marcus Aurelius manifesto title What The Fuck...

[@tyrantfox7801]

The audio is very difficult to pickup. I had to put my volume to maximum to make the speech intelligible

[@guylemieux6221]

use the CC

[@noop9k]

Yeah, and he has this problem for ages.

[@stevenhoman2253]

Does the Russian cobra strike maneuver help to conceal an fighter from phased array radar? Or was this merely gossip?

[@pratikpal5565]

What nanometre node task is utilised to manufacture such electronics that can carry out these identification and processing tasks? Also, if fighters are sent to intercept aircrafts that are collecting electronic intelligence, then it would mean that the electronic signatures of that fighter is compromised. What can the defenders do to counter that?

[@user-zt5kj3yc8e]

How effective radars of modern fighters against helicopters rotor blades?

[@jensolsson9666]

The blades are not the bigest problem. The central part of the rotor is basicaly a rotating radarreflector. Many movable metal parts at angles with another that are rotating.

[@user-zt5kj3yc8e]

@@jensolsson9666 If helicopter hovering or fly very slow it is main rotor blades are fast moving objects with dopler additive, and tail rotor with microdopler. It is if blades have titanium core IMHO. All helicopter with weapons are much bigger radar deflector then rotor hub IMHO. But in the city background only dopler additive is crusial.

[@qaisarabbas3238]

Why aircrafts on notch headings not picked by AI RADARS plz explain ?

[@danieledelfino6527]

What is in your opinion the range of apg73 f18c radar ? (Fighters, cargo, lookdown - lookup ecc)

[@kathrynck]

You won't get an accurate answer unless you get a pilot drunk ;) even compared to whatever is on paper in classified documents. The "official numbers" are highly classified, more so the better a radar is. This actually results in many people thinking that some of the less powerful radars out there are superior, when in reality they just have less classified performance details. Extremely large ranges (like Russia 600km claims for the S-400, etc) should kinda be considered bragging (or uh, "disinformation above the actual capability"). To be fair to Russia, it's a valid form of misinformation. And I wouldn't even call BS except it's ground based, and at 600km the curvature of the earth obscures most of the atmosphere from line of sight, so... On top of this, there's no international standard used for estimating maximum range, because there are so many variables. On a clear day, looking at a 747 at high altitude, from a favorable angle, even a fairly weak/poor radar can make impressive range claims. Usually this results in range claims which include the prefix "up to...", although sometimes that gets lost in translation. And even then, some countries count it when there's any detection at all, even momentary, while others only count it when there's a steady track (which will be closer). But uh... Pakistan claims that the range of the AN/APG-73 is 85 to around 180km max. I would consider that kinda low-balling it, since it's only about a 10-20% improvement over the original radar in the FA-18A/B, and I don't think they'd bother upgrading it for such a small margin. Additionally, the AIM-54 Phoenix missile can be fired up to a distance of a bit over 200km. And initial versions of the FA-18E/F (super hornet) used this radar, and were procured to carry Phoenix missiles for the navy as they phased out the older F-14's. I don't think the navy would be happy with a plane which has a radar range up "up to 180km, sometimes, but definitely good at 85km" on a plane carrying a missile which can go up to over 200km (granted, at 200km, a phoenix won't hit anything which takes any evasive action). I mean, initial detection would have to precede IFF and target lock, so if the Phoenix can go over 200km, you'd want to be able to see a bomber from at least 240km. So if I had to guess, i'd peg the -73 radar at somewhere over 200km for a steady track of something with a fairly big radar signature (say a bomber). This would allow early versions of the F-18E to fire AIM-54's at bombers (which can't evade very well) at the full maximum range of the Phoenix, meanwhile the phoenix wouldn't be very effective against fighters until they're considerably closer, so Pakistan's claimed numbers sound about right IF their claimed numbers are for a target-lock range in look-down against fighter sized aircraft flying low with cloud cover or rain. All of this is based on what I believe the USNavy would consider "minimum" for the role of carrying AIM-54's as cover over carrier battle groups. Also, Pakistan doesn't have any first hand experience with this family of radars. I'm more familiar with the AN/APG-70 which the 73 is based on. The 70 (in the F-15E) has more power feeding it, but they share many components. The 70 can see "very, very" far, and is pretty high tech for pre-AESA, it even includes some ECCM/ECCCCM, and can do ground mapping in a level of detail which includes depicting mail boxes at considerable distance. So the 73 may have more range than I'm outlining, but it's "at least" enough to use the AIM-54 effectively against targets which aren't cooperating, in weather which isn't cooperating (say >240km initial detect against bombers, >160km initial detect against fighters, in unfavorable conditions/angles/etc). The APG-79 on the E/F since 2006 can see really crazy distances, and has an amazing bag of EW tricks. That radar was originally destined for the X-32 in it's competition vs. the F-35. Afaik the 79 is the only 5th gen radar flying in a 4th gen airframe. It's "possible" that the 79 was fielded in the F-18 because perhaps the 73 wasn't quite powerful enough to use the AIM-54 to maximum effect. OR, the navy just wanted more radar range so they know what's going on further away, or they wanted a greater margin of error for the worst possible weather. Or they wanted the 79 because it is "low observable" in design, which helps the E/F to have a "not quite 'stealth' but pretty small RCS". Or they wanted to be better able to track Iranian jets flying below building-height in urban terrain near the straight of hormuz, or to spot cruise missiles from further away, etc.

[@danieledelfino6527]

@@kathrynck really thanks for this great and detailed explanation !!

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

That was a great piece. Can I steal it as the backbone for a video?

[@kathrynck]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Sure :) It's got a fair amount of conjecture in it, but I think it's fairly sound conjecture, which kinda outlines real world radar variables. And it's entirely within the realm of what any adversary would assume anyway, given the AIM-54 pairing.

[@miltonzhang947]

10:15 max verstappen fanbase spotted

[@Kaizzer]

Eagle eye!

[@maitreyabhargav3447]

Hi..can you make some videos about attack helicopter

[@alf3071]

Hey I have a question, how does the spinning searching radar on a mobila anti air system work? does it continually change frequency along the 360 degrees of rotation? how else would it know the direction if the receiver can only time the reflected waves? and is the radar dish the receiver or emmitter or both?

[@gbornitz]

I don't know for sure, but as far as I know the radar is sending for a short time and after that listening to the reflected radar waves. Because radar waves travel at the speed of light (300 000 km/s), the radar hasn't really moved in the time between sending and receiving.

[@alf3071]

yeah that's probably right, but the receiving antenna still has to know which of the pulses got reflected, otherwise you get the wrong distance, the distance is found by timing the radar waves, and I don't think switching off the radar is a good ideea since that would leave blindspots in the airspace so they must have some sort of PWM or something

[@gbornitz]

I once read, that the only limiting factor to a AESA radar is the time the radar pulse need to travel, so I really think, that the radar send only pulses. Also the reflected energy shrinks by the power of 4, so just a little bit behind the maximum detection range, the reflected energy is lower than the clutter. And i think the radar is scanning a thin rectangular instead of a stripe, so it will still have a continous picture.

[@phoneticau]

kudos being so coy and telling us I know more than I can tell you lol

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

No No No, absolutely not! I don't know more than I tell. I take every possible precaution to steer away from any piece of information that is not in the public domain that I should stumble upon. When it comes to national security, no matter the country, it is not a game anymore. The point I made at the beginning of the video was about the fact that there is very little official info on actual implementations, even though the subject is well studied at academic level.

[@kathrynck]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech I know that feeling. I use google to kinda check what's already public. Even then once in a while I see something which really isn't supposed to be on the internet, and I just kinda "pretend I didn't see that", or at least avoid drawing attention to it. But at other times, I'm really shocked at what gets published very visibly into public domain. The published info on the F-35's radar tech was especially shocking to me. As well as some of the engine tech info out there. Perhaps it was simply known that near-peer adversaries already had the info. There was a missile program at McD-D, where they'd throw a fit if anyone left the door open, because it was very hush-hush. And then there was a full spread of the interior in a missile tech book at the bookstore because some CEO wanted his 15 minutes of fame. An employee brought the book to work, and showed it to security. They relaxed the door rules. Stuff like that happens, but I'm sure somewhere in a SCIF, there's people keeping track of such things, and it probably affects contracts. I'm still a bit baffled by the press release from NCU earlier this month.

[@sdfsdfsdfsdsdfsf8468]

Please Please I'm great fan of yours But The voice is always low Please amplify the record voice.using Audiocity

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Thanks, but what are you listening with? My voice and all the audio IS heavily compressed and edited to a level that is around -10dB. This leaves enough room for louder parts or musical interludes. I am maybe 2 or 3 dB quieter than the average talking head video, but not enough to be inaudible. If you listen to a lot of music on YT, which is normally slammed at 0dB, that is where you may feel that my talking is low. I don't know if this helps.

[@noop9k]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech it is annoying to have to increase volume specifically for your videos in order to understand what you are saying. And *it is not necessary* for your “musical interludes” to be louder.

[@thelovertunisia]

This is why the Russians laughed when the US said F35 was not shot down by S300 because they used the occasion to illuminate the plane from different angles to get a good dataset on it.

[@The_abdelhafid]

I think if they give you money you will be able to build a sofisticated missile lol I love ur videos!

[@lancemurdoc6744]

Seems to me the air war tactics becomes almost compareable to the U-Boot tactics.

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Up to a point you may be right

[@m.husnainakhtar9957]

Can you plz do a video on DCS aswell Plz plz plz plz Pretty plz😇

[@matthewgribble939]

Loved the vid. Hope ur backs ok.would still love to know how u know so much? Would love a vid of who u are and why u know so much...ur on KZbin, tell me why?........😎

[@WildBillCox13]

Yah toot.

[@alf3071]

isn't it possible to use visible light optics with super high zoom and resolution to find and identify targets?

[@Ayooluwaigandan]

The further and clearer you need to see, the heavier and bulkier your optics need to be. Both are at a premium.

[@kathrynck]

@@Ayooluwaigandan Even then, there are limitations due to all the 'gunk' in the atmosphere. But LIDAR is an emergent anti-stealth tech. Like most anti-stealth techs, it has fairly limited range, but it 'helps'. After the unveiling of the B-2, Russia has developed some decent laser based optical tech. They're probably ahead of everybody else in that.

[@agnivmandal1946]

IS that "13yo" message reverse psychology to force the 13yos to watch this informative videos? (which they probably won't in general circumstances??? XD XD )

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

No, it is belt and braces safety for COPPA legislation.

[@agnivmandal1946]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech Thanks for the reply, I know it's a requirement, I was just kidding. Great videos though. Keep up the good work. ❤️

[@richardrobinson4869]

I think google plus is not active anymore? haha horse and hound!

[@kinneticsand5787]

Heads up, you have a typo in the title (fore as opposed to foe)

[@Millennium7HistoryTech]

Thanks! I missed it for months!

[@kinneticsand5787]

@@Millennium7HistoryTech No problem :)

[@malaysamani508]

❤️

[@mikejudge942]

Algorithm

[@razony]

'Sounds' like we need a data base to hold ALL the algorithms to ALL moving parts that would be relevant in a military situation. Compress it into hardware the size of my shoe box and...My missile will find it's way. 😊

[@barreiros5077]

So IRT, Datalinks & IA ,avoid that sort of fingerprinting due D.Dopple efectt and almost known 180 % whats going on even in my case...no biggie... I speak as eat...sorry.

[@sohrabroozbahani4700]

What the f@#$ is going on... and who the h@#$ was that? There was a time that you needed a realy crafty back seater to actually sort out the signal of an analogue radar into proper targeting information and a solid lock, but then there are things that a human just can't possibly process...

[@supremeleader5516]

You need to work on audio Try to speak a little louder and clear

[@Elios0000]

you should watch an anime Called Yukikaze. it bring up the whole issue of IFF and what not. but in that show the aircraft has an AI that's able see though spoofing of the IFF by the enemy fighter

[@wOrLdOfEaRlY]

Please get rid of Otis

[@doncalypso]

🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂

[@kathrynck]

"I'm afraid I can't let you do that wOrLdOfEaRlY"

[@NickAlexeev]

Millennium, I like these technology dive videos more than the other kinds. More than "he said she said about F-35". More than the history of beautiful vintage junk like B-58.

[@kathrynck]

Junk? hehe the 58, though it failed to fill the role as envisioned, was probably the most advanced airplane flying at the time (outside of black projects, the archangel 12 series really takes the cake). The Hustler was at the very least a huge learning project. But yeah, I also get extra-nerdy for the technology stuff :)