Test by combat: almost land-based “Grunt”, but based on the F-16

13 408 37
Test by combat: almost land-based “Grunt”, but based on the F-16

A group of South Carolina Air National Guard F-16CJ Block 52 Viper fighters was recently spotted heading east across the Atlantic Ocean. Now it's clear where they were going, and more importantly, why, but that's not really important.

What interests us is the fact that each of the Vipers was seen to be equipped with the Angry Kitten pod, a new electronic warfare system that helps defend against Defense and may be used for the first time in real combat conditions against Iran. The "Angry Kitty" has a very unusual story creation, which we will now tell you about.




These particular F-16 fighters are primarily designed to perform the missions of the US Air Force's Wild Weasel units and are optimized to neutralize enemy air defenses. They can also perform a variety of other missions, but countering anti-aircraft rocket complexes are the primary task.

The 12 F-16CJ fighters are easily identified by the markings of the 169th Fighter Wing of the South Carolina Air National Guard: many have "South Carolina" written on their tails and also feature distinctive markings reflecting the regiment's nickname, the "Swamp Foxes."


The F-16s flying over Lajes carried Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missiles (AIM-120) on their wingtips, external fuel tanks under each wing, and a single cargo pod. Each aircraft was equipped with a LITENING target designator and an AN/ASQ-213 pod with a HARM guidance system.

The AN/ASQ-213 is a key feature of the F-16 Wild Weasel fighter jet. It is primarily designed to support the use of AGM-88 High Speed ​​Anti-Radiation Missile (HARM) anti-radar missiles. The AGM-88 series of missiles is the primary weapon typically used by American aircraft to suppress and destroy enemy air defenses (SEAD/DEAD).

However, the most distinctive feature of these aircraft was the "Grumpy Kitten" pods suspended under the fuselage. US Air Force F-16s, especially the Wild Weasel CJ, typically carry other types of electronic warfare pods, such as the AN/ALQ-184 and AN/ALQ-131.


The Grumpy Kitten has a very different history than other electronic warfare pods in service with the US Army. It is a direct descendant of the AN/ALQ-167, a series of pods used for decades to simulate enemy electronic warfare systems for training and testing purposes. There are several documented instances of US aircraft using the AN/ALQ-167, at least sporadically, in actual combat operations.


A U.S. Navy F-14 fighter jet carrying an AN/ALQ-167 pod and other ammunition and supplies during a mission in support of Operation Southern Watch in 1997.

Development of the Angry Kitten system, which began in the early 2010s, was initially aimed at expanding electronic warfare capabilities for testing and training, primarily for "aggressor" aircraft—special forces aircraft playing the role of a simulated adversary. However, it soon became clear that the new modules could also be useful in real combat situations to protect friendly aircraft. In particular, the ability to quickly adapt the modules to simulate various effects created by enemy systems paved the way for the creation of a much more flexible electronic warfare system for use in actual combat operations.

F-16 fighter jets heading to the Middle East are equipped with Angry Kitten electronic warfare pods.

We had a jammer called 'Angry Kitten.' It was designed to suppress enemy electronic warfare systems," said retired U.S. Air Force General Mark Kelly, then commander of the Combat Command. aviation command (BAC), in an interview in 2022. — And suddenly the "blue" (regular pilots playing the good guys) team said: "You know, we need this too, can we have it?" So I see that we are gradually implementing this technology.

Angry Kitten has been tested on F-16 fighter jets since 2017. The containers have also been tested on US Air Force A-10 Warthog attack aircraft. drones The MQ-9 Reaper and HC-130J Combat King II are currently being tested on combat search and rescue (CSAR) aircraft, as well as on U.S. Navy F/A-18 fighter jets. Last year, AATC announced plans to test the module on KC-135 and KC-46 aerial refueling tankers.


An Air National Guard F-16 fighter jet with an Angry Kitten pod during Exercise Northern Edge 2023.

Unlike older AN/ALQ-167 models, the Angry Kitten system is easier to modify and update, allowing it to adapt more quickly to changing environments. This is made possible in part by its advanced Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) technology, which detects, captures, manipulates, and retransmits radio frequency (RF) signals.

Electronic warfare systems using DRFM can reflect enemy radar signals (and missile radar seekers) back at them, creating false or confusing targets. Data collected by DRFM can also be used to improve and refine the system's capabilities, as well as for other intelligence purposes.

In general, to be most effective, electronic warfare systems must be able to accurately detect, classify, and respond to signals based on information contained in their built-in threat databases. This, in turn, requires specialists to regularly reprogram the systems to keep them up-to-date. Automating and reducing this process at every stage through the development of so-called cognitive electronic warfare capabilities has become a priority for all US armed forces. The absolute "holy grail" of this concept is an electronic warfare system capable of autonomously adapting its software in real time, even while executing a mission.


A photograph showing an F-16 fighter jet testing with the Angry Kitten pod in a centerline position in an anechoic chamber.

The US Air Force has previously shared details about the Angry Kitten system, emphasizing that it is an important step towards new electronic warfare capabilities.

Unlike the F-16 tests, which used pre-programmed mission data files, the C-130 tests have development engineers on board the aircraft who can make changes to jamming techniques during the mission based on feedback from the range,
— said a statement released last March by the Air National Guard Reserve Command's Test Center, which was heavily involved in the development of Angry Kitten.

"They make real-time changes to their methods and send updates to the module, tracking these changes in real time," said Chris Culver, an electronic warfare engineer involved in the work, in the same press release. "This approach allows for rapid optimization of suppression methods for various threat systems."


An HC-130J Combat King II search and rescue (CSAR) aircraft with an Angry Kitten pod on the Special Airborne Mission Installation and Response (SABIR) system installed in place of the left rear paratrooper door.

For F-16 fighters participating in operations in and around Iran, the Angry Kitty system will be a valuable asset for the self-defense of fourth-generation aircraft. B-2 Spirit stealth bombers, as well as F-22 and F-35 fighters, led the strikes against Iran last year as part of Operation Midnight Hammer, while non-stealth platforms provided support on the periphery.

The new campaign will require greater efforts to penetrate Iran's air defenses, which will likely lead to increased use of fourth-generation tactical fighters. Suppression and destruction missions, for which US Air Force aircraft are optimized, are inherently high-risk, as the aircraft are tasked with detecting and destroying air defenses.

An analysis of the air defense capabilities Iran provided to the Houthis in Yemen provides some insight into the associated risks, even for stealth aircraft. However, Iran's own capabilities are more advanced, largely thanks to modern air defense systems supplied by Russia. Meanwhile, Israeli strikes inflicted significant damage on Iranian air defense systems during last year's 12-day war, particularly in the west. It is unclear to what extent these systems have been restored to operational status.

"Angry Kitty," of course, is just part of the vast arsenal of electronic warfare and other capabilities the US military has deployed in and around the Middle East in recent weeks.


It's still unclear how long the new US operation against Iran might last, whether it will last a few weeks or several months. One thing is clear: the US military will have to maximally secure its aircraft operating from regional bases, and not just from Iranian ballistic missiles. And here, "Grumpy Kitten" could prove quite useful.

What is his strength?


"Grumpy Kitty" was developed by the Georgia Institute of Technology's Research Institute to simulate electronic warfare systems on foreign aircraft that the U.S. Air Force might encounter in the skies. It's a software-defined radio (SDR) system, meaning its signal and frequencies can be changed on the fly using code. This is in contrast to traditional hardware-defined radio (HDR), which is limited by the frequencies that physical components can generate and receive.

The project, called Angry Kitten, uses commercial electronics, custom-designed hardware, new machine learning software, and a unique testbed to evaluate the adaptability of electronic warfare technologies.
— wrote the Georgia Institute of Technology's Research Institute in 2013.

"Angry Kitty" allows for the collection of realistic data on interference for complex signals. It can be used to simulate virtually any known threat, even hypothetical radar systems that don't yet exist. Initially, the system was intended to simulate any radar or interference for training purposes, but as practice has shown, the transition from training to combat is often only a single step.

Although radar countermeasures and jamming have existed for decades, the ability to vary methods and frequencies increases the likelihood of a jamming operation's success. This adaptability was a key component of the Angry Kitten tests conducted by the US Air Force in April.

"The flight test at China Lake was the final phase of our operational evaluation," said Keith Kirk, program manager for the AERRES experimental program, which is partly exploring how open source software can improve electronic warfare capabilities.

In the event of a future war, the Air Force can predict with reasonable certainty what aircraft its fighters will encounter, as aircraft are difficult to manufacture or keep secret. Furthermore, since fighters are often produced for military export markets, they are displayed at exhibitions and international arms shows so that potential customers can see them.

However, specific fighter systems (in our case, radars and EW) are easier to keep secret. Therefore, an electronic warfare system designed for the future will be flexible if it can recognize and adapt to the specific signals it encounters in combat. If data from one aircraft is shared across all air forces, made possible by open standards and a reliable, open bandwidth, the second day of air combat with an adversary using an electronic warfare system could go much more smoothly than the first.

According to Air Force Command recommendations, Angry Kitten could evolve from a general-purpose training device into an integral part of future combat operations. Operating in a limited electromagnetic spectrum is virtually inevitable in future warfare. For the Air Force, a specialized sensor and jammer system capable of perceiving, adapting to, and sharing the resulting data could be a significant advantage.

In fact, the initiative is quite interesting. This training equipment, designed to simulate the operation and characteristics of enemy combat equipment based on intercepted signals, could very well become a highly effective countermeasure system. The only question is flexibility, and Grumpy Kitty certainly has that. It's just a matter of adapting the system to current conditions and developing operational tactics. And, apparently, that's precisely why American F-16s are deployed to the Middle East. Where else, if not there, could the Grumpy Kitty be tested in combat-like conditions?


Overall, the initiative is quite sensible. The E/A-18G Growler has long proven itself to be a highly reliable and effective aircraft, serving the US Navy. The US Air Force is long overdue for such an aircraft, and it appears that's exactly what we're seeing now. All that remains is to wait for the test/use reports, and something tells me they'll be quite impressive.
37 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. -9
    13 March 2026 04: 49
    Every day brings news of incredible inventions for mattresses and chimney sweeps. The range of products ranges from cartridges to spaceships. The prices for all this goodness are also astronomical.
    Meanwhile, sanctioned Iran and North Korea are quite successfully producing inexpensive and effective weapons in commercial quantities that work on the battlefield.
    To date, the Persians have knocked off nine sides of mattresses. And this is in just two weeks of war.
    The chimney sweeps have actually flown away from Cyprus into the sunset.
    So investing in all these controversial innovations is more like squeezing money out of the budget...
  2. +7
    13 March 2026 04: 54
    Hmm... that's a rather vague translation. It's hard to tell what it's all about.
    It is a software-defined radio system, meaning its signal and frequencies can be changed on the fly using code.

    As I understand it from the description, the Angry Kitten system is capable of simulating and "replicating" an enemy radar's radio frequency (RF) signal in real time, thereby confuse-ing the enemy missile's guidance system, which will then receive two control signals: 1. from the guidance radar, and 2. from Angry Kitten. Will this work against an enemy missile's active radar seeker? Possibly. If so, that would be pretty cool. In other words, Angry Kitten, by simulating the radar's RF signal, can retransmit it to the missile, increasing its signal strength. If not intercepting the missile's control, then simply diverting it, making it seemingly unnecessary.
    Furthermore, previously, electronic warfare pods relied primarily on a database of radar signals, identifying which the system would automatically jam. Angry Kitten can quickly update the database with newly detected RF signals. I only realized this after the takeoff on the ground.
    Well, this is a very serious system. It's essentially guaranteed protection against missiles with semi-active radar homing.
    It's high time the Air Force acquired such an aircraft.

    Well, the US Air Force has had this aircraft for a long time, only it's based on the F-16 and they operate it in Wild Weasel units. The story of why they switched from the F-4 Wild Weasel to the F-16 Wild Weasel is quite "tragic," as described by Mikhail Nikolsky.
    1. +3
      13 March 2026 06: 39
      Quote: Puncher
      Will this work against an enemy missile's active radar homing head?

      In general, yes. It could, in theory, override the reflected signal with its own, with the same characteristics—as a result, for example, the target would appear closer than it actually is, ensuring an early detonation.
      There are a lot of options. Software define radio allows you to do absolutely everything... Any modulation, any spectrum...
      Now, if it's not exactly Software Define Radio, then there are limitations...
      1. 0
        13 March 2026 06: 43
        Quote from tsvetahaki
        In theory, it can suppress the reflected signal with its own signal with the same characteristics.

        Like some kind of "mirror"?
        1. +1
          13 March 2026 06: 49
          Quote: Puncher
          Quote from tsvetahaki
          In theory, it can suppress the reflected signal with its own signal with the same characteristics.

          Like some kind of "mirror"?

          You could say that, but the comparison is not entirely accurate.
          The head - or radar on the ground/aircraft - distinguishes its signal from another's, usually by coding or other properties - modulation, etc. But simple ones - do not make any special selection.
          If a signal with the required parameters arrives, it is evaluated, and based on the evaluation, what is needed (speed, range, etc.) is calculated and considered a target.
          Send a signal with the required parameters, especially a stronger one, and you will get a false target position.
          For particularly sophisticated radars, there are two targets, doubling.
          This is not counting the radio command control - if there is one at all.
          1. -2
            13 March 2026 08: 02
            Quote from tsvetahaki
            Send a signal with the required parameters, especially a stronger one, and you will get a false target position.

            Heh... So the Angry Kitten system nullifies the capabilities of radar-guided missiles. Yeah... I take it there's nothing secret or high-tech about it?
            1. +4
              13 March 2026 09: 17
              Quote: Puncher
              As far as I understand, there is nothing secret there.

              If I'm not mistaken, all modern BKOs operate on similar principles, including Khibiny, Talisman, Vitebsk, etc.

              Quote: Puncher
              and there is no high-tech?

              I'd rather agree that radar and missile seeker developers are constantly working to improve their jamming resistance. Therefore, defense equipment must have the appropriate capabilities to receive, quickly process signals, and generate the most plausible response. And judging by the news, the Americans are very good at this. Or, more likely, it's all about a systems approach, using specialized jamming aircraft, individual onboard electronic warfare systems on each fighter, the introduction of towed/released active decoys, constant analysis of enemy ELINT systems, and timely software updates for electronic warfare modules. And, in addition to technical methods, the implementation of organizational methods (tactics for using fighters in enemy air defense zones, etc.)

              Quote: Puncher
              It turns out that the Angry Kitten system nullifies the capabilities of radar-guided missiles.

              Most likely it does not reset, but reduces the probability of interception.
              1. +2
                13 March 2026 22: 28
                If I'm not mistaken, all modern BKOs operate on similar principles, including Khibiny, Talisman, Vitebsk, etc.

                The question is HOW this is implemented. Creating a truly software-defined solution for these purposes is difficult. It requires very good electronics—ADC/DAC, FPGA, highly specialized and very high-speed microcircuits.
                But this allows you to do everything "on the fly", and not as it was done in the factory... To adjust on the fly, without limitations on what is built into the hardware.
                Standard kits were severely limited by what was built into them during production...
                1. +2
                  14 March 2026 00: 19
                  Quote from tsvetahaki
                  If I'm not mistaken, all modern BKOs operate on similar principles, including Khibiny, Talisman, Vitebsk, etc.

                  The question is HOW this is implemented.

                  Memorization and analysis of received signals, as well as the generation of interference signals - in digital form, with the possibility of reprogramming.
        2. +1
          13 March 2026 11: 47
          Like a mirror that is illuminated from the inside by a dissector
          1. 0
            13 March 2026 11: 53
            Quote: novel xnumx
            Like a mirror that is illuminated from the inside by a dissector

            Great analogy.
        3. 0
          14 March 2026 08: 19
          Interference... haven't you come across this term before?
      2. 0
        14 March 2026 00: 05
        Quote from tsvetahaki
        In theory, it can overwhelm the reflected signal with its own with the same characteristics - as a result, for example, the target will seem closer than it actually is,

        A pulse radar can't move forward or backward. The radar constantly changes its scanning parameters.
  3. +1
    13 March 2026 05: 48
    Do we have anything similar? Given our lack of good AWACS aircraft on the front, this system would be very helpful for combating the Scalps and Flamingos.
    1. +4
      13 March 2026 05: 50
      Quote: V.
      Do we have anything similar?

      No
      Quote: V.
      Given the lack of good AWACS aircraft at the front, this system would be of great help to us.

      This is not from that area.
      Quote: V.
      to fight the same Scalps and Flamingos.

      This is not from that area.
      It's a system for suppressing incoming missiles. I mean, missiles attacking aircraft.
      1. +1
        13 March 2026 05: 57
        What's the fundamental difference between missiles attacking aircraft and those same scalps? I think it can detect targets and relay them to the air defense system. How do you configure the program? hi
        1. +6
          13 March 2026 06: 08
          Quote: V.
          What is the fundamental difference between missiles attacking an aircraft and those same scalps?

          Guidance system. Tactical cruise missiles follow their route using an inertial navigation system with satellite correction at checkpoints. They are guided by coordinates or, as in the case of the Scalp, by an electro-optical homing system (EOS). This means that an image of an object is loaded into memory, and upon its identification using the EOS, the system switches to attack mode on the selected point. This means that the radar range is either not used at all or, at most, is used for the altimeter, which can also be a laser.
          A surface-to-air or air-to-air missile has a radar-guided mode, where the radar tracks the target and guides the missile to it based on the reflected signal. A conventional electronic warfare system jams the detected radio frequency (RF) channel, disrupting the radar's guidance. The system described in this article, however, substituted the RF guidance channel, either diverting the missile or triggering a self-destruct command (the latter isn't guaranteed to be possible, but it's theoretically possible).
      2. -2
        13 March 2026 09: 07
        Do we have anything similar?
        No

        Read the article
        It is a direct descendant of the AN/ALQ-167, a series of pods that have been used for decades to simulate enemy electronic warfare systems for training and testing purposes.
        "Angry Kitty" was developed... to simulate electronic warfare systems on foreign aircraft that the U.S. Air Force might encounter in the skies.
        That is, the system was initially created as a simulator of OUR electronic warfare systems!
        1. 0
          13 March 2026 09: 27
          Quote: Hexenmeister
          That is, the system was initially created as a simulator of OUR electronic warfare systems!

          It's simply an electronic warfare simulator. The operating principle of electronic warfare stations is the same for all systems, regardless of country.
          1. -1
            13 March 2026 09: 32
            It's just an electronic warfare simulator... the same for everyone.
            Then why did they create a separate system for the "aggressors"? They could have used their own standard ones; they're "the same everywhere!"
            1. +1
              13 March 2026 10: 49
              Quote: Hexenmeister
              Then why did they create a separate system for the “aggressors”?

              It was "merged" there because it was versatile. Compare this to the AN/ALQ-184 electronic warfare pod, which came in two configurations: a short 2,9m (operating in two bands: 4-8 GHz and 8-10 GHz) and a long 3,96m (operating in three bands: 2-4 GHz, 4-8 GHz, and 8-10 GHz). Both configurations were equipped with an AN/ALE-50 towed decoy and an AN/ALE-40/47 decoy release system. Or the more modern AN/ALQ-131 electronic warfare pod, which had three configurations that could be changed on the airfield: 2,2m, 2,8m, and 3,4m. The first had one band, the second two, and the third three bands, respectively. And also towed decoys and a decoy release system.
              1. -1
                13 March 2026 13: 00
                he was universal
                How was it universal? Did it cover all bands? Was its functionality limited? Was its jamming capabilities limited? If the latter two were the case, then it was in no way capable of "representing" a potential enemy's electronic warfare systems. It was worthless both for the "training" process and for use as a countermeasure against anyone.
                1. 0
                  April 7 2026 13: 21
                  Covering all ranges is of course problematic.
              2. 0
                13 March 2026 23: 59
                Quote: Puncher
                It was "merged" there because it was versatile. Compare it to the AN/ALQ-184 electronic warfare pod, which had two configurations: a short 2,9 m (operating in two bands: 4-8 GHz and 8-10 GHz) and a long 3,96 m (operating in three bands: 2-4 GHz, 4-8 GHz, and 8-10 GHz). Or the more modern AN/ALQ-131 electronic warfare pod, which had three configurations that could be changed on the airfield: 2,2 m, 2,8 m, and 3,4 m.

                MSP-418K - length 3,82 m, range - 4-18 GHz.
    2. +5
      13 March 2026 09: 26
      Quote: V.
      Do we have anything similar?

      Yes, onboard electronic warfare systems of Sorbtsiya, Khibiny, etc.

      Quote: V.
      Given the lack of good AWACS aircraft at the front, this system would be of great help to us.

      These devices have different missions. These systems are designed to jam missile radars and radar seekers, while the AWACS is a flying radar for target detection. Roughly speaking, it's like comparing a light bulb and a laser cutting machine—both are radiation sources, but the purposes are different.

      Quote: V.
      to fight the same Scalps and Flamingos.

      Unlikely. These cruise missiles use satellite navigation, inertial navigation, and terrestrial navigation (Terracom) (terrain guidance, which uses a barometric sensor to estimate the missile's altitude and altitude relative to the ground) plus optical guidance (for the terminal phase of the missile's launch). Besides satellite navigation and, to a very small extent, terrestrial navigation, these systems are resistant to electronic warfare. Therefore, to counter them, we need AWACS, a dense radar network, and fighters/air defense systems.
    3. 0
      14 March 2026 00: 00
      Quote: V.
      Do we have anything similar?

      I don't know if you have one. There are even cooler ones in Russia.
      1. 0
        April 7 2026 13: 25
        If there is, why aren't we seeing results? Such systems should have rendered Ukraine's air defenses completely useless. It seems they exist, but in homeopathic doses, and therefore we can't and don't know how to use them.
        1. 0
          April 15 2026 23: 28
          Quote: salawat1980
          If there is, why don’t we see the result?

          Who will tell you about this? Why?
          Quote: salawat1980
          Such systems were supposed to render Ukraine's air defenses completely useless.

          Why is this "should"? "Er in the fourth" versus "Er squared" will always exist. There will always be angle restrictions (with extremely rare exceptions), and there will always be time intervals, and there will always be quantitative restrictions...
          Quote: salawat1980
          It seems that there is, but in homeopathic doses, and therefore we cannot and do not know how to use it.

          Where are you from? All the videos in Russia show all the planes with electronic warfare systems.
    4. 0
      April 7 2026 13: 19
      I'm a huge fan. At least a primitive mirror in antiphase would be needed, so that the signal reaches the radar (or other source) in antiphase and is attenuated by interference. This requires high-speed FPGAs.
  4. -1
    13 March 2026 08: 31
    Electronic warfare is being improved, and this kit will likely be useful against long-range missiles. At mid-course, it will simulate a reflected signal (increasing its power) and divert it away from the target.
    If this is true, then SAMs are also guided in this way.
    1. 0
      13 March 2026 11: 50
      We need combined state security systems—Russia, the Russian Federation, and the Irkutsk region. Then they'll be harder to deceive.
  5. 0
    13 March 2026 10: 39
    It's a shame we don't have anything similar, like the Su-34MP with specialized electronic warfare pods, since the Khibiny is an order of magnitude inferior even to the AN/ALQ-99 in terms of energy. Moreover, the navigator of a combat Su-34 must also be trained as an ELINT/EW system operator. Almost all jamming tasks have been assigned to helicopters, which are physically incapable of flying in formation with the strike group they are covering.
    1. 0
      13 March 2026 12: 54
      I think the Su-30 would be a better choice for this, as a base. The Su-35 is in demand as a fighter, the Su-34 as a strike aircraft, and the Su-30 is somewhere in the middle. Otherwise, the Su-30 production line could be shifted to electronic warfare aircraft, almost ceasing production of the Su-30SM/SM2.
      1. 0
        April 7 2026 13: 29
        It would be suitable for everyone. It would make flying much safer, albeit at the expense of reduced payload. A similar system could also be installed on something like the Tu-141 or Tu-143.
    2. +1
      14 March 2026 00: 10
      Quote: Dmitry Eon
      It's a shame we don't have anything similar, like the Su-34MP aircraft with specialized electronic warfare pods, since the Khibiny is an order of magnitude inferior even to the AN/ALQ-99 in terms of energy.

      The US Air Force (USAF) doesn't have such an aircraft either. The AN/ALQ-99 is a carrier-based electronic warfare system. Larger aircraft don't fit on the deck. The Khibiny and the AN/ALQ-99 are completely different, with different "ideologies" for use.
  6. +3
    13 March 2026 15: 10
    Interesting. But the article could have been much shorter. Without the endless rambling. And the machine translation, which isn't adapted to normal Russian, is getting on my nerves. However, this is a problem with most translated texts on the RuNet. And it seems like all the "translators" don't care about their readers.
  7. on
    0
    April 10 2026 01: 42
    nada sirve si se usa radares de iluminacion por emparejamiento cuántico