F-22's less stealthy then the F-117?!? (link)

Originally posted by waynos
Well, Hockeyguy, if they are the sources that you have mentioned before then I must agree that they are usually very reliable. My sources too are usually reliable but clearly one side is right and one wrong, now how to determine which is the problem.

I am inclined to believe my sources on this because it makes sense and also ties in with every resource on stealth in general and fighter design that I have read. The Super Hornet is an upgrade of an airframe designed in the 70's with no previous regard to stealth, while the Typhoon was designed to incorporate a low RCS from the start, logically therefore I believe what I have read that ties in with that. It is true that it doesn't guarantee it is correct but in this case I have made a judgement call.

It is also true about the fighter designers art lying in the mastery of the art of compromise, Although of an earlier technology level the F-117 is compromised less by its mission than any other 'fighter' ever built, by a very long way.

I once read that one of the aims of ATF was to achieve F-117 like levels of stealth but without compromising mission capability in order to achieve it. This was where the F/A-22 benefitted from the massive strides in stealth technology and it is said to be extremely close to the F-117 in terms of low observability, again for my sins, this makes sense to me and Flight International is maybe THE most respected aviation magazine out there, straight away I will qualify that statement by adding that no, that does not mean they are 100% right 100% of the time.

I have also read that the F-35 is far less 'stealth' oriented than the F/A-22 due in the main to Americas wish for it to be the main export fighter after the F-16 is out of production, this again makes sense to me. Why sell something more (or at least as) stealthy than the F-117 on the world market? I think therefore it would be doubtful that it is as stealthy as some like to think.

The gut reaction from people seems to be along the lines of "Uh oh, thats not good". But why? To make Raptor, whose main function is as an air dominance fighter, as stealthy as an aircraft whose main function is merely to BE stealthy is a fantastic achievement!

Waynos, you have to trust me on this, the Super Hornet and Hornet are two virtually different beasts. The Super Hornet has a much smaller RCS than the regular Hornet, I mean, for one, just look at the cost difference, 29-35 million USD for the F/A-18A-D, and $57 million for a Super Hornet. And according the AvWeekly and Janes, the SH has the smallest RCS out of all the non-stealthy aircraft, while I think it's not by much, you have to give it credit on that.

Originally posted by waynos
It does not automatically follow at all that the Raptor will be miles more stealthy than the F-117, Like I said before, merely to make a fighter such as the Raptor stealthy to as near as dammit the same degree as the F-117, which was only designed to BE stealthy and anything else was a bonus, is an INCREDIBLE technological acheivement. Why can't you see the difference between designing the F-117 and designing a fighter of the magnitude of the Raptor?

I'll leave it at that as I am being tempted into a rant and I don't like those even if it looks like I do

The problem with your line of thought is this - the F-117 couldn't have rounded edges because the computer tech at the time couldn't compute it. Thats why it has all of those angles. A few years later when they started the ATB program, the tech was there - hence why the B-2 has rounded edges and the F-117 does not. They then designed the ATF around the ATB tech. Hence, it's stealth tech is closer to the B-2 then the F-117

Yeah, but what use is a reduced RCS in the Super Hornet if it still carries regular highly observable external stores. Modern non cooperative identification systems in radars can count the missles on your airplane and know what type they are.

Originally posted by Hockeyguy567
Waynos, you have to trust me on this, the Super Hornet and Hornet are two virtually different beasts. The Super Hornet has a much smaller RCS than the regular Hornet, I mean, for one, just look at the cost difference, 29-35 million USD for the F/A-18A-D, and $57 million for a Super Hornet. And according the AvWeekly and Janes, the SH has the smallest RCS out of all the non-stealthy aircraft, while I think it's not by much, you have to give it credit on that.

Yeah, Super Hornet should have pretty small RCS considering that it's just plane with reduced RCS:
www.aerospaceweb.org...

t would be fair to say that the F/A-18E/F employs the most extensive radar cross section reduction measures of any contemporary fighter, other than the very low observable F-22 and planned JSF. While the F/A-18E/F is not a true stealth fighter like the F-22, it will have a forward sector RCS arguably an order of magnitude smaller than seventies designed fighters.
...
None of the RCS reduction features employed in the F/A-18E/F are visible on any of the three Eurocanards, which raises interesting questions about the relative forward sector RCS reduction performance of these types.

www.sci.fi...And about other aspects, this is well said:

In effect, the F/A-18E/F is what the F/A-18A Hornet should have been from the outset, had it not been hobbled at birth by a budget driven bureaucracy.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by E_T]

Anyone have any info/link on the RCS ratio of the F-15, F-16, F-22, F-117, F-35, B2.

They are excellent replied chaps, many thanks. The linked quotes that ET posted are interesting. Espexcially that lione that mentions "none of the RCS reduction methods of the F/A-18F are visible in the Eurocanards" I may have mis-quoted but I think the gist of it is there.

Could anyone tell me what particular measures they are? Assuming of course that they aren't totally classified. I know that 'reduced RCS' (which is probably a more accurate term than 'low RCS, in this case) such as is used in the SH was a feature of Typhoons design requirement but I know nothing about whether this applied also the the Rafale and Gripen. Of course the methods may differ and it would make an interesting comparison I think.

Also Hockey guy, you wrote;

Waynos, you have to trust me on this, the Super Hornet and Hornet are two virtually different beasts. The Super Hornet has a much smaller RCS than the regular Hornet, I mean, for one, just look at the cost difference, 29-35 million USD for the F/A-18A-D, and $57 million for a Super Hornet. And according the AvWeekly and Janes, the SH has the smallest RCS out of all the non-stealthy aircraft, while I think it's not by much, you have to give it credit on that.

I accept and agree with all of that, maybe the difference between it and Typhoon is miniscule one way or the other? I was going to bring in the DERA study that gets quoted on here a lot but I believe it relates only to dogfighting? So it wouldn't apply here.

Also American Mad Man, it was my understanding that the advent of the 'rounded edge stealth' capability was more a way to achieve the same, or slightly better, type of results but with more areodynamically efficient shapes, The faceted type of design being no good at all if you wanted a big bomber or a high performance fighter, allowing these types of aircraft to be created and STILL be stealthy, rather than it actually being massively more stealthy. I mean the F-117 is very very stealthy indeed, how much more stealthy could you get? Maybe the F-117 is not as stealthy as I though it was?

If I have got this wrong it might also explain why the F-35 will be sold on the open market while many of the posters on here hold it to be 'as stealthy as the F-117'. To me this would be sheer madness as the US industry is hoping to export thousands of them over the next two decades, but that is just my opinion.

Finally Devilwasp;

well the USAF has spent/is spending more money on the F22 than it did on the F117 so it MUST be atleast a wee bit stealthy and also i think it would be stealthier since it is newer and has used all the reaserch off the F117 and B2 projects.

I fear you have totally misunderstood the point I was trying to put across.
Yes it is more modern, advanced, expensive and everything else, I never said it wasn't stealthy, never mind 'a wee bit', it is VERY stealthy. But so is the F-117. Which as I have said was designed ONLY to be stealthy. This was a luxury Lockheed didn't have with Raptor. The F-117 doesn't have to be supersonic, at all never mind supercruise, it doesn't have to be manouverable, it doesn't have to do any of the things that are not just expected, but demanded, from the Raptor. F-117 gets away with carrying just TWO internal smart bombs and nothing else. I was not putting the Raptor down, I just think that to expect it to be A LOT more stealthy than the F-117 after everything else it delivers is just greedy, on the part of us, the plane fanatics that is. I think our expectations are sometimes unrealistic.

Finally Devilwasp;

YAY you remembered me!!!!!

I fear you have totally misunderstood the point I was trying to put across.
Yes it is more modern, advanced, expensive and everything else, I never said it wasn't stealthy, never mind 'a wee bit', it is VERY stealthy. But so is the F-117. Which as I have said was designed ONLY to be stealthy. This was a luxury Lockheed didn't have with Raptor. The F-117 doesn't have to be supersonic, at all never mind supercruise, it doesn't have to be manouverable, it doesn't have to do any of the things that are not just expected, but demanded, from the Raptor. F-117 gets away with carrying just TWO internal smart bombs and nothing else. I was not putting the Raptor down, I just think that to expect it to be A LOT more stealthy than the F-117 after everything else it delivers is just greedy, on the part of us, the plane fanatics that is. I think our expectations are sometimes unrealistic.

yeah sorry. i wouldnt say the F117 is really quite modern.
yeah i know u werent putting it down i was just saying it would be a bit stupid to spend so much to spend so much money on a fighter that is as stealthy as the F117 if the new NON stealthy fighters can do the same job for half the price.
yeah they sumtimes are,our exspectations can lead to disaster.

[edit on 14-9-2004 by devilwasp]

The Raptors RCS is smaller than the F-117 but the raptor is bigger faster carrier a lot of weapons something the F-117 did not have, and when i was watching a show on the history channel a while back they said the F-15 had a RCS of a door.

This is very True! The thing most people forget is that the F-22 was built with "Balanced Observables". This means that Lockheed made some compramizes to design a well rounded fighter plane. The trick to this is to avoid exteems in any area. On the other hand the F-117 was built soley to be a light stealth attack aircraft, it survives by being Invisible, If it found, it's a sitting duck! Even if the enemy can find the F-22, He probably won't live to tell anyone about it!

Tim
ATS Director of Counter-Ignorance

Cheers Tim, I really started to think I was swimming against the tide there!

Westpoint, what sort of door? By sheer coincidence, way back in the late 70's, the radar signature of the Vulcan B.2 was described by a RAF officer as being "like a barn door coming over the horizon".

Originally posted by waynos
Also American Mad Man, it was my understanding that the advent of the 'rounded edge stealth' capability was more a way to achieve the same, or slightly better, type of results but with more areodynamically efficient shapes, The faceted type of design being no good at all if you wanted a big bomber or a high performance fighter, allowing these types of aircraft to be created and STILL be stealthy, rather than it actually being massively more stealthy.

That was a big part of it to be sure, but remember, flat surfaces and right angles are what give aircraft away. The F-22 has niether of these, while the F-117 does have many flat surfaces. Also, everyone seems to forget that stealth also includes an aircrafts IR signature, which in the Raptor is greatly reduced.

I think what best sums it up is this:

I was reading an interview with some of the guys working on the Raptor, and one fo the guys said basically that the company he works for makes radar systems that can track and target a F-117. He said that there were radars built in Russia that could do the same. He said that no US company could build a radar system capable of tracking and targeting the raptor that could realistically get a shot off before the raptor had killed the radar site. He also said all intel says the same holds true of the Russian systems. I spent about 15 mins looking for the interview and couldn't find it - I will come back on later and post it.

I mean the F-117 is very very stealthy indeed, how much more stealthy could you get? Maybe the F-117 is not as stealthy as I though it was?

It is very stealthy, but remember that was first generation stealth. The raptor is 2nd gen stealth.

If I have got this wrong it might also explain why the F-35 will be sold on the open market while many of the posters on here hold it to be 'as stealthy as the F-117'. To me this would be sheer madness as the US industry is hoping to export thousands of them over the next two decades, but that is just my opinion.

Yes, the F-35 is roughly as stealthy as the F-117 from what I have read. The reason why we can export this is because the technology is available on the open market. Anyone could come up the stealth tech on that plane, plus we are giving it to our allies. We can also track and target these planes ourself, which means that if they were used against us we could still kill them.

With all of these things being sold, it will just make them cheaper for us to buy, and give our economy a boost.

I don�t mind the F-35 being sold to our allies as long as we don�t sell any to France Germany and Russia im kool with it. That being said i am happy the pentagon is not giving anyone the F/A-222, ally or not the USAF should be the only one with it.

Originally posted by WestPoint23
I don�t mind the F-35 being sold to our allies as long as we don�t sell any to France Germany and Russia im kool with it. That being said i am happy the pentagon is not giving anyone the F/A-222, ally or not the USAF should be the only one with it.

Actually, the Russians could build there own F-35 if they wanted, so if Ivan wanted them, I say we sell them as many as we can (with sensitive electronics taken out of course) because thats billions of their money into our companies pockets, and billions out of Mig + Sukhois.

The F-22 is a fighter 1st and a stealth aircraft 2nd, just looking at its size and shape tells you that it wouldn't be as stealthy as a F-117 or B-2, but it presents a smaller shape on radar, thus an enemy will ignore it or underestimate its dangerousness.

I disagree. It maybe not as small as a B-2 cross setion but it easily beats the F-117. Also the raptor usses not only stealth but speed and HIGH ALTITUDE. Defense systems are set up to encompass low lying areas to detect non-stealthy planes trying to loose themselves in the ground clutter and not high up because if a plane was there it should appear like a battleship. Since only a few radars are scanning that high, sttealth is used more effectively. also the raptor has a wider range on sensors and weapons that high, and can easily trade altitude for speed or maneuvering.

what exactly do you mean by "HIGH ALTITUDE"? like what 100,000+ feet.... cuz i heard the crusing alt for the f-22 is somewhere around 40,000 feet but the max alt is classified last i check... so do you or anyone else know its max level alt???

the stated cieling is "above 50k feet (or 15 kilometers)"

www2.acc.af.mil...

So my guess would be between 55k and 70k feet - probably about 60

Also, I found that quote I was looking for, although I couldn't find the site, I just happened to see it posted in another thread by intelgurl (who else), so I will repost here:

Dick Mather project manager at Lockheed-Martin has this to say regarding the stealth of the F-22...
"How large the F-22 Raptor appears on radar is classified and depends on the quality of the radar. However, it can be said that the F-22 doesn't appear on even the most sophisticated radar systems until it is almost too late to shoot. "You might get your sights up and maybe get a shot, or maybe not, because that...(Raptor) is "ZOOM!" right through your field of view..." then it disappears off the screen.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

The Raptor flight suit has been tested to 60 thousand. A bit of a hint.

Originally posted by beyondSciFi
hummm i found this site: www.aerospaceweb.org...

This is at least the second time I've discussed this page from my group's site here. In order to understand the table you mention, you need to read the paragraph immediately above and below it. RCS values depend on a lot of variables, and these paragraphs explain the uncertainties inherent to those values. Since the data is taken from different sources, we don't know how it was collected or at what radar frequency, so we could be comparing apples and oranges. In addition, real RCS data is classified and most everything that is listed in the open press is estimated.

Given these uncertainties, it is best to treat that table as an approximation of the order of magnitude of RCS for different classes of planes. Older fighters like the F-15 and Su-27 belong to the traditional class of non-stealthy vehicles with high radar cross sections that are easy to detect from great distances. So called "4.5 generation" fighters like the F-18E/F, Typhoon, and Rafale belong to the same class of moderately stealthy aircraft. Truly stealthy vehicles like the F-117, B-2, F-22, and F-35 also belong to a common class. I don't know if the value given for the Boeing Bird of Prey is actually realistic, but if so, it could represent a new class of "ultra stealthy" designs that may emerge in the future.

The conclusion is that I wouldn't put much faith in any of the RCS numbers. None of us can say whether the F-117 or F-22 is stealthier than the other, but we do know that they are comparable and in the same RCS class.