This interview is more than a year old, I know, so it's not exactly "new news",
but what do you think about his opinion about stealth technology?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxDSiwqM2nw

Sprey has pretty much about as much of an idea of what he's talking about as anyone on this forum. He's being presented as having designed the F-16; In reality, all he did was write some of the specifications that dictated how GD designed it. He has no experience of any sort when it comes to aerial combat, and according to him the F-16 shouldn't even had been fitted for long range A-A missiles. The things he claims about the F-35's ability to do its job one day is the exact same things he claimed about the F-15C until its achievements curb stomped what he'd claimed about it.

That's why I posted the link. There are a few people on this forum who seem to know what they're talking about.

Ehhh...
... just another target for the SAM guys.



But to be serious, do you know what was the first target during OAF, hit by a Tomahawk missile around Belgrade???
(the sole P14 Tall King of Serbia)

Is there any truth in what he says about 2nd WW and Russian radars?

I'm not that good on technical aspects of radars, but the way he's arguing is pretty cheap. No stealth plane to date has been designed to by itself be 100% invisible to radar. The way they've always been supposed to work is in conjunction with most of all SEAD supporting efforts. That's why the only shoot down of an F-117 by the Serbians was on a night when someone decided to press on with the mission despite the complete lack of SEAD.

What he's saying is along the lines of saying that body armour for infantrymen is a bad idea because it can still be penetrated. But that'd only be a good argument if the guys wearing it were supposed to just outright walk up to the enemy without weapons, and physically take their weapons away from them. That's just not how it works, it's not a substitute for older methods and equipment, but rather to decrease risks.

Lets take the Cold War Stealth plane, and assume that its RCS is around a tennis ball.
(size of the plane is similar to an F-4 Phantom, so it is a great engineering achievement)

What do we have (using metric target acquisition radar), to shoot it down?

SA-75M Dvina (SA-2F) with the metric P-12 (Spoon Rest-A) target acquisition radar.
Metric P-12 could detect the Stealth at the maximum of ~25km.
RSNA-75M (Fan Song-F) centimeter band fire control radar could detect it at maximum ~10km.
Minimum effective range of the V-750VMK (Guideline Mod.1) missile is 5km.
During the '80s when the Stealth was active, Dvina was generally replaced by the Volhov system.

S-75M Volhov (SA-2E) with the metric P-18 (Spoon Rest-D) target acquisition radar.
Metric P-18 could detect the Stealth at the maximum of ~30km.
RSN-75V (Fan Song-E) centimeter band fire control radar could detect it at maximum ~13km.
Minimum effective range of the V-759 (Guideline Mod.5) missile is 7km.

The Neva (SA-3B), KRUG (SA-4B), KUB (SA-6A), Osa (SA-8B) has no metric target acquisition radar, and the P-14 (Tall King) of the Vega (SA-5B) can be easily annihilated with a Tomahawk before any conflict.

Of course, if you mix the Neva (Low Blow) fire control radar with the P-18 (Spoon Rest-D) target acquisition radar, than nasty surprise can happen...

...and that's where STEALTH kicks in, as all known engagement radars are in sm/mm band....

Does it mean that the development of radars in the USA took another direction?

I want to say that I completely agree with what was said here in the response of the original topic of this thread, specially I fully agree with what scrim said which is backed by Hpasp's data regarding detection ranges.
In complement to what was already said here I want to say that Stealth doesn't mean that's completely "invisible" to a radar, in fact almost any radar can detect any Stealth aircraft. What happens is that a Stealth aircraft (F-117 or F-35 for example) is always detectable by a radar source (doesn't matter the type or band that it uses/operates) at a much shorter range when compared to a Non-Stealth (F-4 or F-15 for example) or to Semi-Stealth aircraft (Super Hornet or Rafale for example).

I'm going to be on the generic side here:
- Imagine a radar that can detect a Stealth aircraft at 20Km (twenty) for example. This means that this same radar will be able to detect a Non-Stealth at much longer ranges, in the range of hundreds kilometers - I would say 200 (two hundred) kilometers for example.

- Now imagine that someone (doesn't matter who) is able to make some considerable progress in radar technologies, perhaps even using cutting edge technologies, perhaps using it together metric band radars and that this sort of new technology manages to detect a Stealth Aircraft such as the F-35 at ranges of 100km! This would certainly be a great achievement and I wouldn't say impossible, but again lets imagine this (still) imaginary radar which is able to detect a Stealth aircraft such as the F-35 at ranges of 100km, what would be the detection range of this same radar when detecting a non-stealth or even a semi-stealth aircraft such as the Super Hornet or Rafale for example? 700-800km or perhaps more?
Taking this "academic" example an knowing that currently (and in the future) there is (and will be) a considerable arsenal of air launched weapons with ranges in excess of 100km, I say that a Stealth aircraft such as the F-35 can still be able to avoid and even destroy such radar systems without ever being detected!
The same cannot be said regarding Non or Semi-Stealth aircraft since there isn't any air launched weapon with a range in the excess of 800km, at least for a fighter sized aircraft that I know of (Large Bombers such as B-1, B-52, Tu-95, Tu-160, etc... may be a different matter).

A big problem with trying to see a target 800km away, is the earth is round.

One point that this thread seems to be missing, is stealth shouldn't be used on its own. It should and usually is be used in conjunction with stand off jamming aircraft and maybe decoys.

In this case, they would have to employ some kind atmospheric bounce effect due to the curvature of the Earth. If I'm not mistaken, an aircraft would have to travel at 20,000 m to be detected at the distance of 500 km or something like that (the SA-5 manual by Hpasp).

Like I said in my previous post, I gave an "academic" example only in order to show that a Stealth aircraft will always be harder to detect than a non-stealth one no matter what radar technology will be invented in the future.
In my "academic" example I admit that I didn't take the Earth's curvature into the account (thanks for pointing it out). And I could reduce the range from my previous example from 800km to a more realistic 400km and the end result would be the same/similar.

Also yes, in the case of the F-35 (the most advanced stealth fighter aircraft) Stealth won't be used on it's own -> The F-35 will be able to use it's radar (as an antenna) and internal jammer to jam enemy radar sources (similar to a dedicated jammer aircraft) or of course use data from other sources (thru data-link), etc, etc...

EDIT: Actually I'm curious to know if it's possible to employ some kind atmospheric bounce effect in order for a radar to be able to detect aircraft at ranges that exceeds the Earth's curvature as pointed out by MK_PL?

I thought I brought up that point in my second post in this thread

Yes, you did.
However I just wanted to focus a bit more on the radar range versus stealth and non-stealth aircraft issue. And jamming a radar source can reduce the range at which that radar source can detect any aircraft which means that Stealth+Jamming makes Stealth aircraft even more deadly/dangerous/effective.

By the way, I once heard that condition of F-22 stealth coatings becomes "critical" after 1,7 h of flight or so; it doesn't sound very optimistic, does it?

Entirely possible. The B-2 IIRC has had issues with its radar absorbent paint being stripped off if flying through even just rain clouds at one point. However, since the F-22 has been cancelled I doubt it'll be an issue, unless the same problem occurs with the F-35.

Another often overlooked factor making hard to detect Stealth, is that long range target acquisition radars are focusing their output power (main beam) at few degrees above the horizon (0 to 9 degree in case of the P-18), and their capability to search upward, a high flying close target is limited.

Very interesting info Hpasp!
Actually never though and didn't know that long range radars focus most of their power output at only a few degrees above the horizon.
Also, great info about the OTH radars.

Thanks for sharing the info and links

The F-22 hasn't been cancelled, only fewer than expected/planned were built due to budget constraints (instead of more than 600, "only" 195 were actually built).

The F-35 has a very different stealth coating "system" compared to all previous Stealth aircraft (F-22 included).
Instead of relying on radar absorbent paint which indeed has issues in terms of maintenance, the F-35 uses a rubber-style skin/coating which is not only much more resistant (than the radar absorbent paint) and therefore it lasts much longer but it's also much easier and cheaper to repair (in case the coating suffers some sort of a rupture or fracture).

It sounds like F-117 coating...

It is interesting how US will counter Russia/China's "stealth" technology?

If the actual frontal RCS of Russian T-50 is in the range of 0,3-0,5 m^2, as has been declared, the U. S. doesn't need to worry a lot...

Well certainly or most likely, it is not.

I don't know for sure what the F-117 coating is like or is made of but the F-35 rubber-like stealth coating is cutting edge technology which was never used or applied in previous Stealth aircraft (which includes the F-117) and this new F-35 rubber-like stealth coating is more durable and easier to maintain than previous Stealth Coatings.

In fact the F-35 more advanced stealth coating is starting to be applied to the F-22 as this article points out:
http://www.dailytech.com/F35+Stealth+Coatings+Applied+to+F22/article21321.htm

That article also mentions the advantages in terms of maintenance and durability that the F-35 coating has over the current F-22 coating which I suspect is probably similar to the one applied to the F-117.

Thank you all for sharing your knowledge. Interesting read.
I'll have to post links more often

Both the F-22 and F-35 are using gap-fillers, not necessarily any type of RAM paint (FYI, I've seen F-16's painted with RAM paint. It's not that expensive for some levels of stealthy).

Gap-fillers do exactly what they suggest: They fill the gaps in the panel lines etc, thus eliminating radar-reflecting/amplifying cavities on the aircraft surface.

Generally speaking, the aircraft shape + gap fillers form the modern stealth concept.

F-35 gap fillers are newer technology than those of the F-22, and they are being refitted to the F-22, IIRC. This reduces maintenance requirements.

Gap-fillers probably have to be replaced after maintenance (opening and closing of panels).

Remains of the F-117A vertical stabilizer in my hand...

Would you like to describe it with your own words?

Extremely light and strong honeycomb structure.
The inner graphite side is like paper, the outer yellow part is like plastic or epoxy.

Each F117A plane had two sets of vertical stabilizers. One pair made of metal, one pair made of this structure.

During peacetime, only the metal pair were used, the plane could pull bigger G's during airshows, and had bigger RCS.
The wartime only, composite pair limited G's considerably, but had basically no RCS.

On pic i posted, they're talking about two types of "protecting cover" - black one - like rubber, the other one (red-yellow) is like cooper folio... Maybe it is related with the body cover/structure? What Col. Dani said about that?

Not sure about your sources ...



... but here is the honeycomb I showed earlier.

This one is also a good shot...



... and the "other" participant .

According the serbian description below, the source is apparent... I think this is related to the surface layer only:

According to everything that I read and been reading, Stealth planes don't use "gap-fillers" only has you mentioned but complete skins which covers complete surfaces, at least the F-35 does.
Actually Lockheed Martin claims (albeit being considered a "dubious" claim) that with time the surface material (the Stealth skin) will smooth out making the F-35 stealthier over time. Being this claim realistic or not, this I believe more than proves that the F-35 has indeed a Stealth Skin and not a Stealth "gap-filler" only.

Here's one link with this info:
http://www.wired.com/2012/11/f-35-gets-stealthier/

Besides, either the link above or the pictures posted by Hasp clearly shows that even older Stealth aircraft such as the F-117 had complete Stealth coating/skin which cover not only gaps but complete surfaces.

Stealth is NOT a SCAM.

What you can see in this picture...

A, All screws are painted over, visible only where the cover is damaged.
B, There is two type of cover used, a light gray, and a generic dark one covering it.
C, Epoxy is used generously.
D, Places where strong forces present, the epoxy-honeycomb structure is used.

You've been reading the wrong things then.



Old news. All those aircraft use shape primarily, the F-117 needed a lot of RAM coating, the F-22 and F-35 undoubtedly use RAM-paint as well, as do other fighters today ... and they also use gap-fillers. The main stealth concept is shape, not paint. Paint's the icing.

Sure, and you always read and post the right things as usual...

Also, since you're always the owner of the truth this surely must mean that the folks at Lockheed Martin are telling us the wrong things and therefore the Stealth coating that Lockheed Martin affirms that the F-35 has (which curiously is one of their "product") and which covers most of the aircraft either doesn't exist or it's almost useless! Whatever...






Nobody here said otherwise! Of course aircraft shape is the primary "feature" of any Stealth aircraft, including the F-117 or any of the most advanced stealth fighters such as the F-35.
But coating still and always play an important part as well, and saying otherwise seems to be na�ve in one end or completely wrong on the other end.
Try flying a Stealth fighter aircraft such as the F-35 or the F-22 without any Stealth/RAM coating over enemy territory and you'll see how stealthy they will (not) become! Just read here (probably you'll find this info wrong as well, but hell I'll give it a shot):

http://globalaviationreport.com/2013/10/11/the-magic-of-stealth-its-more-than-just-shape/



One more interesting (probably wrong again according to Grayghost, I imagine) information about the F-35 stealth coating:

http://www.ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/2010/3/Seegmiller_SAE-2010_Precision_Robotic_Coating.pdf

http://articles.sae.org/7072/

In the last link above you can read among other things the following:

"The RAFS (a Robot which sprays the RAM coating over the F-35) applies a special radar absorbing material (RAM) coating over all surfaces of the fully assembled F-35 except for the horizontal and vertical tails and various small parts that are coated in a separate Robotic Component Finishing System."

I think that the information above CLEARLY states ABOVE any reasonable DOUBT that most of the F-35 surfaces, if not the entire F-35 surfaces are covered with RAM skin coating and not only some parts of the aircraft such as gaps.

"RESONANCESCATTER30

Deutsche Aerospace, Bremen anechoic chamber measurements of a faceted, metallized 1:10 scale model of an F-117 aircraft:
“The aircraft geometry was obtained from open literature and hence the target model does not take into account fine structure details and surface materials such as RAM, which are of less importance at VHF/UHF...

”“The scaled measurement results... show that the attempt to reduce the target’s RCS has been successful in the ±70º section around the nose-on aspect and for the frequency range above 400 MHz.High RCS values covering the whole frequency range occur when the direction of illumination is perpendicular to the front or back edges of the wings or other dominant structures of the fuselage. In the nose-on section, however, an increase in the RCS can be seen at VHF around 100 MHz [6 to10 dBm2] and UHF around 400 MHz [0 to 6 dBm2 , > 6 dBm2nose on] due to resonance effects. Hence, such stealth techniques can be efficient at high radar frequencies but are ineffective at VHF/UHF"