Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8260404" data-attributes="member: 16814"><p>Reading more on that page, there's good stuff, but, they are heavily weighted towards sensors.&nbsp;&nbsp; They baseline assumption is that sensor nets will be cheap, effective, and have good efficacy when dispersed liberally.&nbsp; Effectively, they're argument against stealth is that they'll have too many eye watching.&nbsp; The few formulas mentioned are not well sourced (their links just go to where they're mentioned, and no explanation of the constants or how they are derived is provided, much less units -- dear god, the units are all over the place meaning the constants need to have some heavy units attached to balance an equation that otherwise delivers ton-meters per second into kilometers.&nbsp; There's no support to explain how these constants are derived (and they can be, I just can't easily follow it).&nbsp; I'm guessing there's an assumption of how much energy in watts (newton-meter per second or kg m^2/s^3) is &quot;detectable&quot; which isn't stated (but may very well be right).&nbsp; There's a nice guest article towards the end that discusses practical stealth, to which the rebuttal is &quot;but this isn't really stealth.&quot;&nbsp; Again, the definition that you can hide while effectively shooting and under full burn rears it's head and establishes the &quot;impossible&quot; angle.</p></blockquote><p></p>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8260404, member: 16814"] Reading more on that page, there's good stuff, but, they are heavily weighted towards sensors. They baseline assumption is that sensor nets will be cheap, effective, and have good efficacy when dispersed liberally. Effectively, they're argument against stealth is that they'll have too many eye watching. The few formulas mentioned are not well sourced (their links just go to where they're mentioned, and no explanation of the constants or how they are derived is provided, much less units -- dear god, the units are all over the place meaning the constants need to have some heavy units attached to balance an equation that otherwise delivers ton-meters per second into kilometers. There's no support to explain how these constants are derived (and they can be, I just can't easily follow it). I'm guessing there's an assumption of how much energy in watts (newton-meter per second or kg m^2/s^3) is "detectable" which isn't stated (but may very well be right). There's a nice guest article towards the end that discusses practical stealth, to which the rebuttal is "but this isn't really stealth." Again, the definition that you can hide while effectively shooting and under full burn rears it's head and establishes the "impossible" angle. [/QUOTE]

Verification