[acc_297]

From the wiki I take it they have yet to build and fly a full-sized prototype

"A 1/4 scale model was successfully demonstrated in 2022 in Narragansett Bay"[1]

Also I assume radar-proof is just because it's a ground effect vehicle that will never fly high enough to show up on radar it certainly doesn't look all angular like a stealth bomber. In which case my bicycle is also radar-proof?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REGENT_Viceroy

[icegreentea2]

They just started testing a full scale prototype like at the start of March. https://www.regentcraft.com/news/regent-begins-sea-trials-of...

They've done boat mode tests, but they haven't flown yet.

[acc_297]

Thanks for sharing, I honestly wish this company the best electric planes are a hard problem to solve and it's good to see anyone making an honest effort.

However to poke just a little fun this line stands out as a hilarious marketing claim that cannot possibly be true

"Almost all (98%) of UAE coastal residents are interested in riding a seaglider, according to our global consumer survey."

It's also interesting to note that the CEO has appeared on no fewer than 13 different podcasts between mid-2022 and last week which is I suppose how one would go about getting a high value US defence contract these days.

[Mistletoe]

I’m imagining the aging defense contract awarders listening to the podcasts right now on the treadmill.

[vonmoltke]

> Also I assume radar-proof is just because it's a ground effect vehicle that will never fly high enough to show up on radar it certainly doesn't look all angular like a stealth bomber. In which case my bicycle is also radar-proof?

From the way the article is worded, it does seem the author is only considering air search radar with this claim. Without low observability features, this will show up on surface search and surveillance radars. There might be an initial period where some radars fail to register it because they reject it as a possible target due to its kinematics. If craft like this become common, though, the signal processing algorithms will be updated to handle them. Most can already deal with very low-flying helicopters anyway.

That said, just because it isn't angular doesn't mean it doesn't have low observability features. Radar absorbing material would still make it harder to detect. So would more subtle elements of the physical design. I don't think "radar-proof" in that section header is justified, though.

[dylan604]

Even on airborne radars like AWACS, they can detect ground movement. They typically have a filter to ignore things under certain speeds as they are not typically concerned about traffic near highway speeds. However, the proposed speeds for this thing would still show up with those filters enabled. It would be interesting to see what minimum speeds would be.

[vonmoltke]

Yes, AWACS has limited moving target indicator (MTI) capability. A full-featured maritime MTI radar would easily pick this up, provided the signal processing algorithms don't reject the track for moving too fast.

[SideburnsOfDoom]

> Also I assume radar-proof is just because it's a ground effect vehicle that will never fly high enough to show up on radar

My guess is yes. Simply because the Caspian Sea Monster [1] was "the largest and heaviest aircraft in the world from 1966 to 1988", not at all stealthy looking, and simultaneously also "undetectable to many radar systems, as it flew below the minimum altitude of detection."

So yes, a much smaller craft will also be hard to radar. Notwithstanding that the tech has moved on at both the "detect" and "don't be detected" ends of the contest.

As I understand it, it's also easier and safer to fly these craft now, as they are computer-stabilised, which the 1960s design could not have been. And therefore easier and safer to fly them lower. (The Caspian Sea Monster "was destroyed following a crash caused by pilot error." )

1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caspian_Sea_Monster