A return to the Air Force for the sleek Blackbird?

reply to post by Zaphod58




Out of intrest why did they retire thr F-117?

reply to post by mbkennel

Just think about your experience with non-stealth commercial aircraft. When they are low, they obscure brighter sky, they look dark. Because the total air above them is brighter than their reflection. When they are flying high, they are light compared to the sky, because they reflect more than the amount of air which is above them at that altitude. Active lighting = more flexibility and low observability. Low observability, not invisible. Radar stealth is also low observability, not invisible----such craft are detectable but at shorter ranges than conventional craft, and missions are designed with these quantitative parameters in mind.

People forget radar is an acronym: Radio Detection and Ranging. It detected objects, which is damn important. Nobody cares if the object is visible or not to the human eye. The fact it is up there is the issue. That said, visual stealth is just baloney unless the target is uber primitive. As someone stated in the thread, you could fly a Spitfire over Afghanistan for recon. [There is a Navy program that is on and off again to develop a cheap plane just for CAS in primitive areas like Afghanistans. The Super Tucano project looks canceled, though it was flying this month, and the Navy OV-10G have been flying around Fallon. That program is technically canceled too, but you just can't put a big enough stake in the heart of a military program.]

The light from the sky is planar (excluding directly sunlight). The light from a flying object obeys the inverse cube law. You can only adjust the light for one particular distance to one particular observer.

Basically optical stealth beyond simply coatings or camo is bad science. Low radar observability on the other hand is crucial.

reply to post by schuyler


My father was a B-52 crew chief for many years. When he was at Castle, they had an aircraft (tail number 007) that was bent. He said you could climb on top of it, and see how twisted it was.

They used 007 for training new pilots and crews, which made it fun. One flight during the training syllabus they flew without allowing them to trim the aircraft, which meant that the crews had to keep full rudder applied to keep it flying straight.

He said you could always tell when they did this flight because the person that flew would get off the plane hunched over, rubbing their back. He said one day, this student got off, rubbing his back, looked at the instructor, and very plaintively said, "Sir? Do they all fly like that?"

reply to post by crazyewok


Cost played a big role in it. The RAM coating on the F-117 was maintenance intensive, and easily damaged. They changed the coating several times over the course of its lifespan, but newer designs were more effective, more robust, and cheaper to maintain.

reply to post by mbkennel

"any kind of range"? I don't believe that. Lower observability sure, but unlike radar stealth, there is some minimum total emissions. Friction and combustion still make heat, you can't change the laws of physics. If you want to gain energy & altitude you have to burn. You can try to modify it from one bright dot to a more diffuse blob.

Yes energy needs to be conserved. So the name of the game is not just observability but the ability to lock on target. Notch the flight path, vary routes, etc. Stealth is more than just the aircraft technology.

reply to post by Zaphod58


New designs? Like the F-22 and F-35 or a classified aircraft?

reply to post by crazyewok


New coatings for the B-2, the F-22, the F-35, the..........

Originally posted by Zaphod58
Yes, friction is going to play a role, but not nearly as much as you think it will. There are ways to alleviate even that heat to a degree that makes it very hard to track the aircraft. Otherwise, what's the point of stealth? All you'd have to do is point an IR camera at the sky and look for a heat source.

Until recently IR sensors were much lower range than radar and they weren't that good.

The F-117 used ceramics, and upward vented exhaust on top of the wing. The B-2 uses baffles and a long exhaust (as well as a rumored active system). The F-22 and F-35 have to move beyond those, as both of those don't allow for much power (I've watched the F-117 roll 8,000 feet on a 10,000 foot runway on take off). So they have to move to a different way of hiding the IR signature, or again, what's the point.

Well they had better be awfully good. This is what a F22 looks like in infrared under performance flight.

www.youtube.com...

reply to post by crazyewok


The paper is listed in this thread, but I'm not about to dig through it since I thought the paper was pretty much junk.
Look here

It was electroluminescent panels, not electrochromatic. Yeah, you can apply some light and for a specific observer on the ground, you can make the plane harder to spot visually. Of course, a closer observer will see the aircraft brighter than the sky due to the inverse cube law. And this UAV didn't need to fly at multi-mach or have a low RCS.

Originally posted by gariac
Yes energy needs to be conserved. So the name of the game is not just observability but the ability to lock on target. Notch the flight path, vary routes, etc. Stealth is more than just the aircraft technology.

This a point I've been harping on lately. "Security" is not just a technical issue. It means using your brain to outwit your adversary. It means not exposing yourself to vulnerabilities in the first place, not strapping on a suit of armor after the fact. It's not enough to stick on an anti-virus program and keep it updated. It means NOT CLICKING on the friggin' link! I know this is verging off-topic, but the same rule applies.

So slapping on an invisibility cloak doesn't really work, but finding a way to keep those radar waves from bouncing back does. You've got to find a way to pretend you aren't there.

reply to post by mbkennel


You realize that most US aircraft have classified systems that they're not allowed to use normally right? That's like when the Rapier tracked the B-2 and such a big deal was made of it. The B-2 and F-117 in normal flight aren't using everything they have to hide.

It's like the TEWS system used on the F-15 and F-16. It was capable of a lot more than just threat detection, but the only time they were allowed to use more than just threat detection, and a few secondary systems was in the simulator and in combat. They weren't allowed to use anything more than absolutely basic systems, especially when there were foreign aircraft around that might record the signals from it.

It's known that there are systems on the B-2 that are highly classified based on a few reports that have leaked out, and from things I've seen the few times they were around, but it's not known for certain what they do. It stands to reason that the F-22 is going to have them, or improved versions of them.

If the F-22 was that hot in real combat, then why bother with stealth? It would be easy as hell to track a strike package from the ground, let alone with an IRST system. The point of stealth is to survive longer, which means less detection by both IR, and radar systems. If you have a stealth aircraft that stands out that much on IR, it's not going to survive for long, so there is no point in it.

Stealth development has moved into multifrequency radar, infrared, microwave, and beyond. It has moved so far beyond where it was when the F-117 came into existence that it's like the SR-71 to the Wright Flyer.

And contrary to what others may say, visual stealth is being developed and worked on. People a lot smarter think that there is an advantage to it, and it will play a role in the future.

Originally posted by mbkennel
Well they had better be awfully good. This is what a F22 looks like in infrared under performance flight.

www.youtube.com...

This guy was intentionally showing off though, wasn't he? He wasn't trying to be stealthy, but was demonstrating how he could pretend to be a helicopter, which used a ton of power, as was shown by the heat signature. In other words, he wanted the crowd to see him and was not trying to hide from them.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by smurfy

 

A crew chief on Okinawa used the JP7 that had leaked out of the bird to put out a gasoline fire started by the V8 start cart (either a Cadillac or Oldsmobile engine, I think it was a Cadillac though). Everyone else was running for the door, he picked up a broom and swept some JP7 over the fire, while everyone crapped themselves, and put it out.

To start the engines required the use to Triethylborane (TEB) to get the temperatures high enough to ignite the fuel. That's what created the characteristic green flame on engine start.

Yes i know, not that particular story, but the box of matches was a joke applicable to most diesels. JP7 is, (not was) much of a joke though, nasty stuff and the Blackbird used biillions of pounds of it.

reply to post by smurfy


The KC-135s used to love it. They'd get airborne on JP4, then slowly mix the JP7 with it, to ignite the JP7. It burned cleaner, and gave them more power and range than the JP4 did.

reply to post by Zaphod58


Regarding the classified systems on the F-35, would they be carried over to the export versions or just the American stuff?

Originally posted by crazyewok
Wouldnt its stealth abilitys though just be well out of date? I mean this is 1964 tec

The U-2 was and never is considered a "stealth" plane. It is a spy plane. It isn't designed to avoid or decieve radar; it is designed to fly high and fly quick through enemy airspace.

reply to post by Stealthbomber


Each export customer is allowed to decide what systems they want on the aircraft. For example, Norway is developing an air launched version of the Joint Strike Missile to be carried by their F-35s, the UK wants Meteor, and the Israeli Air Force wants pretty much the entire EW suite gutted with their own systems installed.

As for the classifieds that are integral to the aircraft, it would depend on what they are. If they're NOFOR, then they're removed and replaced with something else that can do the mission, otherwise, there shouldn't be any reason not to export them.

I don't see why they wouldn't though, considering that there has been an RAF Mission Commander operating the B-2 (including combat missions) for several years. If they don't have a problem with a foreigner seeing what that can do all lit up, then I don't see why they would with the F-35 systems.

Originally posted by crazyewok
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

Out of intrest why did they retire thr F-117?

Too expensive and newer, better aircraft were in the pipeline. I was at the F-117 retirement. It was a great moment in aviation history and a sad one watching that "woblin goblin" take the back seat.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


Not so much quick (stall to break up is something like 15 knots), just high. One of the advantages developed after the overflights were stopped were side looking cameras for both the U-2 and the SR-71. With their operational altitudes they can look for a couple hundred miles or more.

Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by ownbestenemy

 

Not so much quick (stall to break up is something like 15 knots), just high. One of the advantages developed after the overflights were stopped were side looking cameras for both the U-2 and the SR-71. With their operational altitudes they can look for a couple hundred miles or more.

True. Quickness was developed afterwards in the SR-71. Its main purpose was to fly higher than any known altitude of Russian SAMs at the time. Even when Powers was 'shot' down, it wasn't due to impact but the blast effect (suspect to me and speculation really).

But you are right, I shouldn't have included 'fast' as a purpose of the U-2.