radar

Let's pretend the perspective is true, that ATC has full responsibility for separation when the pilot is doing instrument training in visual conditions under radar contact.

Almost not existent noise and IR signature, and with carbon fiber construction i'd suppose very low radar cross-section.

The state of the art in radar is that sensing power lines and similar wires is not reliable.

The radar detection range was indeed reduced by an order of magnitude but once detected they could be tracked.

Another alternative is to sweep the radar so you get multiple revisits from different times and angles.

They still could've consolidated on radar, comms, weapon/missile systems, and so on while making the plane physically ideal for its missions.

Also, my way of putting it was much scarier, since we have already built lots of radar stations.

Instead just low radar cross section, supercruise, and lots of payload (f-35 can carry very little because of stealth and jumpjet design constraints).

I'm not super familiar with groups using ground-based ice-penetrating radar, but one big tradeoff is $$$.

If you were trying to avoid radar would you have done that?

The drone flight will be recorded in radar and various visual systems.

We don't sweep the radar side-to-side, but since it's on a moving platform, we see the same thing from multiple angles.

Any time you use the word "toxins" my pseudo-science radar turns on and my ears/eyes turn off.

My original point was "No, you can't make millions by getting on radar here in Turkmenistan.

If you truly think there is nothing to learn from Zynga other than "get on the radar of Turkmenbashi", I really think you should look again.

I think "phased array radar" is the relevant search term.

Radar power needed increases as the fourth power of the range.