Quantico

 Top American military personnel have been summoned to Washington (in effect Quantico,

Virginia) tomorrow to be addressed by the Secretary of Defense and President Trump. This is most

unusual - and potentially reckless to have them all at the same place at the same time!! - 

while not revealing to what end. A suivre...

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/09/28/trump-hegseth-generals-meeting-pentagon-00583891

                                                                         *     *     *

Copilot:

NATO countries may soon be deploying acoustic sensors to spot drones and othe incursions. How do these work?

🛰️ Acoustic sensors for drone detection are part of a growing toolkit NATO and other defense organizations are deploying to counter low-cost, hard-to-track aerial threats. These sensors work by listening—literally—for the unique sound signatures produced by drones in flight.

🔍 How Acoustic Sensors Detect Drones

Passive Listening Arrays: These are essentially high-sensitivity microphones arranged in directional or omnidirectional arrays. They continuously monitor ambient sound for the telltale whine of drone propellers or motors.

Sound Signature Matching: Each drone type emits a distinct acoustic fingerprint. Advanced systems use machine learning to compare incoming sounds against a database of known drone profiles, even distinguishing between fixed-wing and rotary-wing types.

Triangulation and Tracking: When multiple sensors are networked, they can triangulate the drone’s position and direction of travel. This is especially useful in urban or cluttered environments where radar might struggle.

Detection of Autonomous Drones: Unlike RF sensors that rely on intercepting control signals, acoustic sensors can detect drones that operate without radio communication—making them ideal for spotting autonomous or pre-programmed threats3.

⚙️ Integration with Other Systems

Acoustic sensors are rarely used alone. They’re typically part of a multi-layered defense network that includes:

Radar for long-range detection

RF analyzers for signal interception

Electro-optical cameras for visual confirmation

Together, these systems create a more complete and resilient threat picture.

⚠️ Limitations

Range: Most acoustic sensors max out at 300–500 meters, though some long-range models extend further3.

Environmental Noise: Wind, urban sounds, and temperature shifts can interfere with detection.

Swarm Confusion: While they can detect drone swarms, distinguishing individual units within a swarm is challenging.

🛡️ Strategic Value for NATO

Given the economics of drone warfare—where cheap drones can provoke costly missile responses—acoustic sensors offer a cost-effective, scalable, and passive way to bolster early warning systems. They’re especially valuable for protecting critical infrastructure and border zones where stealthy incursions are likely.

If you're curious, I can walk you through how these sensors might be deployed along NATO’s eastern flank or simulate a layered defense scenario.

Are jet fighters ever detected through their acoustic signature?

🛩️ Jet fighters can be detected acoustically, but it's rare, highly situational, and generally not relied upon for modern air defense. Here's a breakdown of the concept and its limitations:

🔊 Acoustic Detection of Jet Fighters: How It Works

Sound Emissions: Jet engines produce intense broadband noise—especially during takeoff, afterburner use, or low-altitude flight. This includes:

Turbine and exhaust noise

Aerodynamic noise from airframe and control surfaces

Sonic booms (if supersonic)

Sensor Arrays: Ground-based microphone arrays or airborne acoustic sensors can theoretically pick up these sounds and triangulate the source using time-delay and frequency analysis.

Signature Matching: Some research efforts have explored identifying aircraft type based on unique acoustic profiles—similar to how drones are classified by propeller noise.

⚠️ Why Acoustic Detection Isn’t Widely Used for Jets

Speed and Altitude: Jet fighters often fly at high altitudes and supersonic speeds, making their acoustic footprint fleeting and hard to localize.

Environmental Noise: Wind, terrain, urban sounds, and atmospheric conditions distort or mask jet noise.

Latency: Sound travels slower than radar or IR signals. By the time a jet’s sound reaches a sensor, the aircraft may already be gone.

Directional Ambiguity: Unlike radar or IR, acoustic sensors struggle to pinpoint direction and altitude without dense sensor networks.

🧪 Research and Edge Cases

Airport Noise Monitoring: Civil aviation authorities use acoustic arrays to monitor and classify aircraft for noise compliance.

Military Experiments: Some European projects (e.g., AIR GUARD, MONSTER) have explored acoustic tracking for aircraft ID and battlefield awareness.

Historical Use: In WWII, acoustic mirrors and listening devices were used to detect incoming bombers—before radar became dominant.

🧠 Bottom Line

Acoustic detection of jet fighters is technically possible, especially at low altitudes or during noisy maneuvers, but it's not tactically reliable. Modern air defense leans heavily on radar, infrared search and track (IRST), and electronic warfare systems. Acoustic sensors are more promising for drone detection, where the sound signature is quieter but more persistent and distinctive.

If you're curious, I can walk you through how acoustic arrays might complement radar in a layered defense system—or simulate a scenario where acoustic detection could play a role.

I was thinking of a more tight scenario, where long-range missiles could pick and choose their fighter targets from acoustic data...

Ah, now that’s a fascinating edge case—acoustic-guided missile targeting of jet fighters. It’s conceptually intriguing, but let’s unpack why it’s not currently viable and what would need to change for it to become feasible.

🎯 Why Acoustic Targeting of Fighters Is Impractical (Today)

Speed vs. Sound Lag Jet fighters move at hundreds to thousands of km/h. Sound travels at ~343 m/s in air. By the time a missile “hears” a jet, the jet has already moved far from the point of emission. This latency makes real-time targeting nearly impossible.

Altitude and Atmospheric Loss Fighter jets often fly at altitudes where sound dissipates rapidly. Acoustic waves weaken with distance and are distorted by wind, temperature gradients, and terrain.

Directional Ambiguity Even with advanced microphone arrays, pinpointing a jet’s exact location and vector from sound alone is unreliable. You’d need a dense sensor network and real-time triangulation—hard to scale across a battlefield.

Missile Constraints Long-range missiles rely on radar, infrared, or satellite cueing. Acoustic sensors are passive and low-bandwidth. Embedding them in a missile would require:

Real-time onboard processing of complex sound data

A massive sound signature database

A way to distinguish overlapping jet sounds in a cluttered environment

🧪 Could It Work in Niche Scenarios?

Yes, but only under very specific conditions:

Low-altitude, noisy jets flying near a dense acoustic sensor grid (e.g., urban combat zones)

Loitering munitions or short-range interceptors that use acoustic cues to refine targeting after radar/IR lock

Hybrid cueing systems, where acoustic data helps confirm or classify targets already detected by other means

Ukraine’s “Sky Fortress” system, for example, uses acoustic sensors to detect drones and cruise missiles, then fuses that data with radar to cue mobile firing teams. But even that system doesn’t rely solely on sound for targeting.

🧠 Theoretical Future: AI + Acoustic Fusion

If acoustic sensors become ultra-sensitive and AI models can rapidly classify and localize jet sounds, you could imagine:

A networked missile swarm using distributed acoustic data to prioritize targets

Passive targeting in GPS-denied or radar-jammed environments

Signature-based discrimination, where missiles choose targets based on engine type or maneuvering sound

But we’re not there yet. Radar and IR remain dominant for fast-moving, high-altitude threats.

Want to sketch out a hypothetical battlefield where acoustic targeting might play a role? Or explore how AI could fuse multi-sensor data for smarter missile guidance? I’m game.

                                                              *     *     *

Russian pundits have said it many times. In the advent of an East-West conflict, the first thing to do would be to disconnect our internet. Is there any local backup at all. One would think that, in the age of AI, there would be...

You're tapping into a very real and under-discussed vulnerability: the fragility of global internet infrastructure in times of geopolitical tension. And you're absolutely right—given how dependent AI, finance, logistics, and even basic communication have become on uninterrupted connectivity, you'd expect robust local fail-safes. But the reality is more patchwork than fortress.

🧠 What Happens When the Internet Goes Dark?

In a major East-West conflict, severing internet access could involve:

Cutting submarine cables—which carry ~99% of intercontinental data.

Disabling IXPs (Internet Exchange Points)—key hubs that route traffic.

Targeting satellites or ground stations—especially for remote regions.

National firewalls or kill switches—used by countries like Russia or Iran to isolate their networks.

🔌 Is There Any Local Backup?

There are some mechanisms, but they’re far from universal or foolproof:

1. Mesh Networks

Decentralized, peer-to-peer systems using Wi-Fi or Bluetooth.

Can operate independently of the internet, but limited in range and bandwidth.

Used in Cuba, Hong Kong protests, and disaster zones.

2. Local Intranets

Some governments and institutions maintain internal networks (e.g., Russia’s “Runet”).

These can support limited services like email, databases, and internal apps.

But they’re not substitutes for global connectivity.

3. Backup Internet via Mobile Networks

Failover setups using 4G/5G hotspots and dual-WAN routers can keep homes or businesses online temporarily.

Still dependent on telecom infrastructure, which may be targeted or overloaded.

4. Satellite Internet (e.g., Starlink)

Offers resilience by bypassing terrestrial infrastructure.

Ukraine’s use of Starlink during the war is a prime example.

Vulnerable to jamming, spoofing, or orbital attacks in high-intensity conflict.

5. Offline AI & Data Models

Some AI systems can run locally, but they require pre-downloaded models and data.

Real-time updates, cloud-based inference, and collaborative learning would be disrupted.

🧭 Strategic Implications

Russia’s emphasis on disconnecting the West reflects a broader doctrine of information warfare—where controlling the flow of data is as critical as controlling territory. Western nations, by contrast, have focused more on cyber resilience than full isolation capabilities.

If you're thinking about how AI could help here, it’s more likely to be in:

Predictive outage detection using ML models.

Routing optimization during partial failures.

Autonomous mesh coordination in disaster zones.

But a full “local internet” that mirrors global capabilities? That’s still more aspiration than reality.

Would you like to explore how Canada or NATO might prepare for such scenarios—or how civilian infrastructure could be hardened?