It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is this a slip up regarding the F35 stealth?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 12:50 AM
link   
I ran accross this article on military.com:


He also said Britain has source codes for the aircraft's stealth technology and expects the production phase to last about two years


Military.com Article


Wouldn't the typical stealth consist of the shape of the design? Why would the source code (typically refering to some type of control software) be required for stealth? It could be needed for ecm duties, but might it also be used for an electronic system? (plasma, electrostatic, ?) Of course, it could also be a simple interviewer missunderstanding.

Thoughts?


edit for grammer

[edit on 13-12-2006 by paulrio74]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
edited title for spelling

[edit on 14/12/06 by masqua]




posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 06:58 AM
link   
Considering the technology is classified and has been the reason the tech transfer to the UK has been such a political hurdle - it may be years before specifics on all the information you seek becomes open source.

On the other hand I have also heard that the controversial tech transfer includes stealth technologies like the F-35's radar-absorbing paint, software source codes for the aircraft's equipment OS and sub-programs and weapons integration software.

Good question - and welcome to ATS!



[edit on 12-13-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 01:27 PM
link   
Hello

There is some discussion at the moment that the F-22 and F-35 not only use physical stealth, aka shape, paint, RAM etc but that it uses a form of electronic "active" stealth. I guess you could call it a form of invisible jammer.

I can't explain the concept to any great detail as its not an area I have worked in.

Traditional Jammers, bombard the radar system with so much return energy with that idea that the Radar operator can not work out where the enemy aircraft are, the idea of "Active" Stealth I assume works on the same concept, but instead of allowing the return energy to report its position, it sends signals to the radar system itsself to "play" with the operator, such as producing "Ghost" aircraft, distorting the returning energy, or even cancelling the return energy.

I hope I explained that in some logical way.

Enjoy



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
Thanks for the replies! I'm just glad someone else found some interest in it. Wish we could know more.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 03:25 PM
link   
The Raptor can use it's AESA radar to jam or electronically attack another aircraft radar system, this has been somewhat acknowledged, I think.


[edit on 13-12-2006 by WestPoint23]



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Folks,

Military.com goofed! The quote has to be a misprint, I'm sure of that!

The term Source Code refers to the lines of commands and instruction that make up a computer program. Stealth has NOTHING to do with a computer program, it has to do with how the plane is constructed: shaping, materials, codeing, ect. Stealth as we know it is currently a Passive technology. the aircraft isn't transmitting anything that helps it hide from Radar and IR.

paulrio74 is indeed right, there is a misprint in the article!

Tim



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 03:51 PM
link   
This may be a bit off topic but, me dad told me about a stealth artical he read. It was to due with an energy field around the plan that cancles out the wave forms of almost all types of energy. Radar, sound, light, thermal and xray exc. The craft within the field is invisible even to the eye. This may have something to with this article but, not sure.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 08:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by halfmask
This may be a bit off topic but, me dad told me about a stealth artical he read. It was to due with an energy field around the plan that cancles out the wave forms of almost all types of energy. Radar, sound, light, thermal and xray exc. The craft within the field is invisible even to the eye. This may have something to with this article but, not sure.


This tech does not exist. It is theoretical only and has yet to be figured out. I'm not entirely sure if this is related to Plasma Stealth (I've yet to really get into what that is, perhaps Intelgurl knows more about that kind of thing), but this is definitely a concept that has been thought of. People have yet to think of a way to create the "Null-Energy Bubble" though.



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost01
Folks,

Military.com goofed! The quote has to be a misprint, I'm sure of that!

The term Source Code refers to the lines of commands and instruction that make up a computer program. Stealth has NOTHING to do with a computer program, it has to do with how the plane is constructed: shaping, materials, codeing, ect. Stealth as we know it is currently a Passive technology. the aircraft isn't transmitting anything that helps it hide from Radar and IR.

paulrio74 is indeed right, there is a misprint in the article!

Tim


Actually, I bet it has quite a bit to do with modern stealth - and it would make perfect sense as to why the US is so hesitant to hand it over to ANYONE else. Like a previous post stated - I suspect that modern stealth has pushed past the traditional "passive form" and into a more active form. If someone is willing to do the research, I'm sure that they will find plenty of evidence supporting the ability of an aircraft to "spoof" an air defense system using either it's own radar or a similar device..



posted on Dec, 13 2006 @ 10:13 PM
link   
I must agree with Crusader97, but I'd like to take it step further...


Originally posted by Ghost01
Folks,

Military.com goofed! The quote has to be a misprint, I'm sure of that!

The term Source Code refers to the lines of commands and instruction that make up a computer program. Stealth has NOTHING to do with a computer program, it has to do with how the plane is constructed: shaping, materials, codeing, ect. Stealth as we know it is currently a Passive technology. the aircraft isn't transmitting anything that helps it hide from Radar and IR.

paulrio74 is indeed right, there is a misprint in the article!

Tim

Not so fast there Tim...

Much of Britain's concern was that they would not be able to maintain the stealth technology, not that they necessarily wanted be able to replicate all technologies on board the JSF including stealth.

In order to properly maintain the soon coming F-35, the Brit's will need to be intimately familiar with the software of the low observable verification system which provides quick assessments of the stealthy characteristics of VLO aircraft. This system senses out needs for repairs in the stealth coatings, picks up dents and other anomalies on the airframe that contribute to a larger radar hit - which from a maintenance standpoint insures mission readiness and the aircraft's survivability.

In fact, it could be that while there are no acknowledged stealth source codes (unless there is an active form of stealth being utilized - which would not surprise me, but that is for another discussion - can somebody say plasma propagation?) there certainly is maintenance software that by it's very nature could be very revealing of the make up, design and properties of the F-35's stealthy characteristics.

Additionally the software for automated flight is highly classified as it is integrated with onboard sensors and linked to other aircraft in the vicinity's sensors including AWACS - thus enabling the aircraft in question to automatically weave it's way through the lowest risk paths even though it may be in a heavy EAD area. I suppose that some journalist could consider this software, "stealth software" since it enhances the functionality of the VLO airframe.

The avionics system's software is also classifed, as well as the complete methodology that integrates all systems together into one cohesive system of systems.

So, although there may be no literal source codes for the F-35's stealth, without those source codes the stealthy characteristics could be all but useless.



[edit on 12-14-2006 by intelgurl]



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 06:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by intelgurl
I must agree with Crusader97, but I'd like to take it step further...

[
Not so fast there Tim...

Much of Britain's concern was that they would not be able to maintain the stealth technology, not that they necessarily wanted be able to replicate all technologies on board the JSF including stealth.

In order to properly maintain the soon coming F-35, the Brit's will need to be intimately familiar with the software of the low observable verification system which provides quick assessments of the stealthy characteristics of VLO aircraft. This system senses out needs for repairs in the stealth coatings, picks up dents and other anomalies on the airframe that contribute to a larger radar hit - which from a maintenance standpoint insures mission readiness and the aircraft's survivability.

So, although there may be no literal source codes for the F-35's stealth, without those source codes the stealthy characteristics could be all but useless.

[edit on 12-14-2006 by intelgurl]


You're basically restated the point I was atempting to make! The Stealth itself has NO source code, because as far as we know, it's not active. I never said Anything about the Low Obserability Verification System, which is indeed computerized. I wasn't commenting on support equipment! Given your point, you may be right on the money about this one Intelgurl.

Your right that there are a lot of places where computers maintain a key role in helping the F-35 make use of it's stealth technology to maximize survivability.

Sorry if I was unclear in what I was attempting to point out.

Tim



posted on Dec, 14 2006 @ 10:49 AM
link   
There is speculation that the Thales SPECTRA system in the Rafale utilises some form of active cancellation.


From AirToAirCombat:


It appears that Thales has been working on "active cancellation" technology for the SPECTRA system, with the jamming transmitters picking up a hostile radar and then feeding back the signals out-of-phase to cancel out the echo from the aircraft. The French have been quiet about this capability and it is probably a future item.



While some would say this is impossible - consider that radars do not 'paint' one target constantly, but revisit it every so often. So the cancellation signal does not have to be on constant either. Also, a RWR reciever only detects another radar when it recieves electromagnetic pulses - which isn't going to happen if the signal is directed away from it, so normally a 3rd party will not hear the Rafale go active cancelling out.

The flaw is if in a flight of 2, the lead aircraft has its radar on, while the 2nd aircraft is running passive, its RWR should pick up the return.




Anyway, it could be very very possible (if not probable) that the F-35 uses some form of active cancellation, which would obviously require complex programming of radar/RWR and other sensors/actuators.




top topics



 
0

log in

join