F-22;F-35 stealthier than B-2.

I think they are tricking us. Im sure the B2 is more stealthy than the F35 at the very least.

I didn't know that RAM could be used in canopies...

I thought that the reason the F-22's cockpit had that gold tinge to it was because it was inlaid with gold, which protected the pilot from radiation, much like the EA-6B. Same goes with the F-16 : the whole point of the gold inlay is to protect the crew when working in a high radiation environment. I'm guessing this is the same for the F-22?



external image



Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]

QUESTION.......

Why the big gap between the F-22 and F-35 in
number series???????????????????????

You are partially correct, the gold film in the canopies is indeed there to reduce the radiation entering the cockpit.

Of course Radar IS radiation, and there are things in the cockpit that reflect a large amount of radar radiation. The gold canopies came about in a program called "Have Glass" which was tasked with reducing these radar reflections inside the cockpit.
This technology has been applied to several aircraft including the B-2, F-117, F-22, EA-6 and F-16.
A couple of the newest Russian fighters also have this technology, (SU-35 comes to mind).

So in summary, Yes, the gold does protect the crew from radiation, particularly jammer radiation on the EA-6, but it is primarily there to reduce the RCS of the aircraft.

*Edit:
It should also be noted that just because an aircraft has a couple of RCS reducing features - that does not make it a "stealth" aircraft. The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is a good case in point, utilizing several "stealth" features, but not classified as a "stealth" aircraft.




[edit on 12-28-2005 by intelgurl]

It is because the F-22 is numbered in sequence with every other new US fighter since 1962 (with the F-21 being the IAI Kfir), while upon selecting the X-35 as the chosen JSF design they just changed the X to an F and let the sequence go hang.

I have been a regular here at ATS for some time now, but seldom post here in the Aircraft Projects. Why? Because I currently am in the USAF and working on a project (prefire plans for aircraft) which gives me access to certain materials and information. Nothing spectacular nor grand.

What I use for reverence is the aircrafts official specifications as referenced in NAVAIR, & T.O. 00-105E-9, & additional sources. My primary duty these days is to design quick reference manuals for Air Force Firefighters which can be utilized by firefighters on the way to an emergency response to specific aircraft, be it a ground response, or an inflight emergency. It seems to me that the F-22 is stealthier in some aspects of the design of the body than that of the B-2, however the B-2 does not include some safety measures that would give away it's position. In other words I am saying, yes the F-22 is stealthier in some regards, but the B-2 is devoid of some systems that may provide a signature, at a cost. Maybe this addresses your question, maybe you think I'm full of doo-doo.

Peace,



[edit on 28-12-2005 by Esoteric Teacher]

Since my last post here I have recieved a few messages from some well intentioned patriots. I can understand their view, and respect it. But I did not state anything that is not already public knowledge, and supplied by people who certainly outrank myself. I can assure you that I am certainly cautious and selective in my contributions here on ATS. Thanks for your concerns.

peace,
John

of course it does.... the pilot's body is like a radar beacon, contrasting to a stealth plane, it would be like a spotlight shining from a black screen

I have always wondered how does the B-2 Spirit steer if it has no rudders?

I know the YB-49 had a few small rudders but the B-2 has none so how does it turn around?

Horizontal Vectored Thrust exhausts?

I remember seeing on television a show called "Worlds greatest fighters". They interviewed various people about the F-117, and I recall a comment that the F-117 was intended to be an all-weather fighter however the faceted design resulted in ice buildup in more severe weather.

First find a picture of a B-2 landings (rear veiw)

You will see near the tip that a V-shape has openned up to work as a speed brake.

This can also be be used to provided rudder input But the RCS would bloom a bit (espeacially from the rear)

on Bombing runs (iron bombs),an aeliron turn would experience adverse yaw and a skidding/slide throught the turn due to the lack of vertical surface. So a bit of rudder would be useful to counter act these effects.

I got this info from reading up on the yb-49. In these more modern day of computers and laser guide bombs it must be "easier".

Dead steve

Hey, they have the internet on computers now!
[edit on 30-12-2005 by dead steve]

[edit on 30-12-2005 by dead steve]

Um, how does a speed brake in the middle of an aircraft act like a rudder?

The B-2 doesn't have a rudder because it doesn't NEED one. The whole plane is fly-by-wire, which helps with stability during flight. Some of you have brought up the YB-49. That was doomed from the start because the technology didn't exist for it to have fly-by-wire controls. The B-2's computer system won't let you do things in the aircraft that would cause the plane to become unstable, unlike the YB-49.


external image


Take a look at the top left section of the wing.

Birds don't have a 'rudder,' and they fly along just fine.



Mod Edit: Image Size – Please Review This Link.

[edit on 1/1/2006 by Mirthful Me]

Look at your photo, you've supplied the evidence. The left speedbrake is deployed, that will induce a turning moment to the aircraft's left - exact same as a rudder would do.

Fly-by-wire does not mean you can ditch control surfaces right left and centre (since most fighter aircraft since the F-16/Tornado have had FBW) - but it does mean you can integrate control surfaces for mulitple functions as is the case for the B-2, and the need for a rudder is eliminated (due to the design brief no doubt - it lowers the RCS not having a vertical fin).

Birds work in much the same way as a B-2 I'd guess, using their wings and plume to provide yaw control.

It doesn't, both ailerons being split and operated together serve as an airbrake, I believe this is what was referred to rather than the beavertail.

Okay, that's my fault. When he said "the tip of the V-shape," i thought he meant directly between the two engines....thats why i didn't understand how a speed brake there would work.

When someone refers to "tip", I doubt their referring to the far inside of something.

Shattered OUT...

To be fair to Blackthorn the beavertail does have a tip. I suppose its just the way you interpret the comment.

A bunch of planes today use the beavertail speedbrake. One off the top of may head being the A-10. Mind you its function is pure speedbrake not like the B-2. anyone know of anymore planes that use this braking method?
And on topic. I think that as of right now I'll believe that the 22 could be more stealther then the B-2 but I also agree with most people in saying I find it hard to believe that the 35 is more stealthy then the B-2. But then again I would welcome someones inteligent input as to way i may want to change my mind.

I'm not sure what you people mean by beaver tail airbrake, but if it is what I think it is, then the F-15 and the Su-27 series use it.

If it's the other airbrake that I have in mind then the F-16 uses it.

Shattered OUT...

my condolences steve, sorry to hear about your passing.