http://gizmodo.com/5968827/quantum-physics...njammable-radar

and the tech curve just got blown if they make this thing work

So, the way I understand, there are three ways to go about stealth technology.

First, build your plane in such a shape that it reflects the coming waves off to the sides, and nothing or nearly nothing back at the scanner (see F-117). That tech is unaffected by the development, because the waves are still not returning to your scanner, whether they are polarized or not.
Second, there's using wave-absorbing materials to reduce the power of the waves reflected. Again, unaffected: polarized or not, the power of the waves you're getting at the receiver is diminished.
Third, there's building aircraft with minimal possible RCS. That could potentially be affected, I guess, because RCS is a rather arcane thing to work with, depending on wavelength and complex shapes involved and whatnot; but I doubt that the change will be revolutionary (because why would it; principally the same RCS-reducing measures should work for the new radars, as well).

So all in all, I can't see how the development (at least as described in the article) makes stealth obsolete. It might make active radar ECM less effective, but that's far from the revolutionary change described.

Predator vs. Prey. When the scanner technology evolves, so too will the stealth technology.

I imagine that the simplest anti-infallible-radar technology will remain the most reliable.

Detect incoming infallible radar signal > auto-launch anti-radiation missile at it > one missile journey later, the other guy no longer has an expensive infallible quantum radar.

So send in a few waves of drones whose only job is to present a target for the infallible radar to lock onto, blow the infallible radar away, and suddenly you could cruise overhead in a zeppelin and they wouldn't know it. (Hyperbolicly speaking, anyway.)

Now I want a Quantum Zeppelin.

~Umi

Still waiting for other engineers around to point out how that thing is in any way negating the current stealth technologies.

It has quantum in the name, therefore it must be infallible. Duh.

From my read, what it does is merely making the radar jamming proof, as you can automatically sort out what's a genuine signal bouncing back from something that's sent at the radar by jammers and active decoys (say a tin can emiiting o nthe radar's wavelenght to masquerade as a B-52) . But it still vulnerable to chaff - both the plane and the chaff appears to the radar as a genuine return of it's pulse - and 'passive' stealth which doesn't give a return signal to lock on.

It might be harder to fool with 'active' stealth based on canceling the incoming signal with an opposite one.

That is so cool.

Quantumn Zeppelin could be this generation's Led Zeppelin.

All of those are passive evasion of radar, not an active jam of radar. This new type addresses the second, not the first.

Stealth is what is used to drop a couple of laser guided bunker busters. Radar jamming is what is used to protect multiple waves of B52's.
Stealth is most likely unaffected, but the jamming used for large attacks will need to be updated.

Assuming of course you can field this radar and it has no adverse affects and doesn't interfere with your own equipment. What about a quantum jamming pod on a drone that detected and then flooded the receiver with the exact same signal.


Sensors, ECM, ECCM, is just a game of one upmanship. Few countries do it well and have the expertise.

It can't. It's actually, literally, impossible.

Well, sure, just like I said in the last paragraph in that message you quote. The thing is, stealth aircraft is considered stealth primarily for the passive measures: every modern combat plane has active ECM. So the whole pompousness of the article is not exactly spot on.

Que?

Because it does not invalidate the stealth technology. Because stealth aircraft differ from not-stealth precisely by employing passive measures, ones the tech does nothing about.

The article makes no reference to stealth technology.

It says "unjammable" and "infallible." It does not say "unavoidable."
(Infallible in this usage is referring to spoofed signals, as the system can recognize the difference between a real signal and a faked signal infallibly)

Infallible is infallible.

Do remember what happened to the ship that was claimed to be "unsinkable".

"So guys we developed this new wiz tech, it makes it so we can't be jammed, like ever! We still can't see them, but if we could! we wouldn't be jammed (hmm, raspberry)"