Weird New V-22 Osprey Paint Job

[FlyingCanOpener]

Since developing a navalized F-15E would be less difficult than developing the "essentially all new" F/A-18E/F I have not idea how "easy" you think it would be to make a V-22 stealthy - wait a minute, IIRC you think developing a navalized F-15E is near impossible.

Why would you not want to reduce the RCS of a V-22?

249939[/snapback]

 

Because it essentially can't be done?

 

I would ask what you know about airframe design and RCS, but I'm terrified at the answer...

[Guest pfcem]

Actually, I think the picture looks fake.  It appears to be a montage made up of several images. Both aircraft look fake to me.

249829[/snapback]

I do not know what picture you are looking at.

 

Here is anotherone (probably taken shortly after).

 

http://www.dod.mil/photos/Nov2005/051115-N-3527B-068.html

[Guest pfcem]

Because it essentially can't be done?

249959[/snapback]

Yes you can.

 

Like I said, you are not going to get a V-22 to be a stealthy as a F-117, F/A-22 or F-35 but like the F/A-18E/F, Eurofighter Typhoon & Rafale, you can significantly reduse its RCS through the use of "strategically" place RAM.

Edited November 23, 2005 by pfcem

[Brasidas]

[quote name='pfcem' date='Wed 23 Nov 2005 0611']Yes you can.

Like I said, you are not going to get a V-22 to be a stealthy as a F-117, F/A-22 or F-35 but like the F/A-18E/F, Eurofighter Typhoon & Rafale, you can significantly reduse its RCS through the use of "strategically" place RAM.
[right][snapback]249973[/snapback][/right][/quote]

You know, I'm no radar specialist, nor am I an airframe specialist. I just attended a non-classified colloqia once on stealth and RCS characteristics of aircraft. The prevalent theme was that RCS is a function of geometry, and couldn't be matched by RAM. Do you have any information that says otherwise?

[BP]

It looks to me that the semi-gloss coating also produces a nice, and very visible, sheen, reducing the visual LO benefits of the "standard" paintjob.

 

--Garth

249770[/snapback]

 

Kind of like the time one of my troops wiped an entire HMMWV down with Break Free/CLP prepping it for a parade, as he said it made it look "cool".

 

Sure, it did make the CARC paint glisten for a while, but the smell and the s@#$ I caught from the battalion commander far outweighed it. . .

[mcantu]

I read something recently that it was a special paint job to reduce the IR signature and weighs 30 pounds less than the regular low vis paint

[Guest pfcem]

You know, I'm no radar specialist, nor am I an airframe specialist. I just attended a non-classified colloqia once on stealth and RCS characteristics of aircraft. The prevalent theme was that RCS is a function of geometry,  and couldn't be matched by RAM. Do you have any information that says otherwise?

250052[/snapback]

I agree that if you want a truly stealthy aircraft like a F-117, F/A-22 or F-35 you have to do it with the shape of the aircraft. There is only so much RAM can do to reduce the RCS of an aircraft. But if you read my entire post you will realize that I am saying that RAM can be used to reduce the RCS of the V-22 some. Similar to the way RAM is used on the F/A-18E/F, Eurofighter Typhoon & Rafale. I am not saying that is what is being done to the aircraft in the picture but it could be.

[FlyingCanOpener]

You know, I'm no radar specialist, nor am I an airframe specialist. I just attended a non-classified colloqia once on stealth and RCS characteristics of aircraft. The prevalent theme was that RCS is a function of geometry,  and couldn't be matched by RAM. Do you have any information that says otherwise?

250052[/snapback]

 

It in the section next to navalizing the F-15E...

[UN-Interested Observer]

Add to that the radar return from the miles of copper windings incorporated in the laminate fuselage/wings to meet the EMP requirements and voila, you have the RCS of a C130 with rotors!

249726[/snapback]

 

Why would they use copper wire instead of aluminum?

[Brasidas]

I agree that if you want a truly stealthy aircraft like a F-117, F/A-22 or F-35 you have to do it with the shape of the aircraft.  There is only so much RAM can do to reduce the RCS of an aircraft.  But if you read my entire post you will realize that I am saying that RAM can be used to reduce the RCS of the V-22 some. Similar to the way RAM is used on the F/A-18E/F, Eurofighter Typhoon & Rafale.  I am not saying that is what is being done to the aircraft in the picture but it could be.

250177[/snapback]

 

However, it's a somewhat wasteful implementation I think. Firstly, any aircraft that operates as an assault transport, is least worried about radar guided missles. It is much more concerned with AAA and passive IR guided missles, especially on short final to the landing zone. Any glossy paint scheme is going to be much more visible than a flat or matte paint scheme for a tactical aircraft.

 

Additionally, there are so many edges and baffles on the Osprey, that no amount of RAM is going to appreciably reduce RCS anyway. Your pretty much stuck with it as is. Best idea I think, is to have a nice low-visibility paint scheme, and a decent set of IR passive/active countermeasure suites set up, and avoid radar if possible, and supress it, if it isn't possible to avoid.

 

Someone else said that the IR sig could be suppressed using paint, but I find that difficult to believe with 95% of it emitting out the exhaust. You could likely cause the IR energy transmitted to the nacelle structure to emit in a slightly different wavelength, but you just can't mask it too well. You'd be better off using exhaust baffles to try and cool the air before it gets emitted, but that just makes the baffle a huge IR sink. Really, there aren't many good ways to reduce IR emission, just concentrate the source, or diffuse the source, but hiding them is very very difficult.

[mcantu]

However, it's a somewhat wasteful implementation I think. Firstly, any aircraft that operates as an assault transport, is least worried about radar guided missles. It is much more concerned with AAA and passive IR guided missles, especially on short final to the landing zone. Any glossy paint scheme is going to be much more visible than a flat or matte paint scheme for a tactical aircraft.

 

Additionally, there are so many edges and baffles on the Osprey, that no amount of RAM is going to appreciably reduce RCS anyway. Your pretty much stuck with it as is. Best idea I think, is to have a nice low-visibility paint scheme, and a decent set of IR passive/active countermeasure suites set up, and avoid radar if possible, and supress it, if it isn't possible to avoid.

 

Someone else said that the IR sig could be suppressed using paint, but I find that difficult to believe with 95% of it emitting out the exhaust. You could likely cause the IR energy transmitted to the nacelle structure to emit in a slightly different wavelength, but you just can't mask it too well. You'd be better off using exhaust baffles to try and cool the air before it gets emitted, but that just makes the baffle a huge IR sink. Really, there aren't many good ways to reduce IR emission, just concentrate the source, or diffuse the source, but hiding them is very very difficult.

250321[/snapback]

 

Read the last post at this link:

 

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&...t=411296&page=2

 

With newer IIR seekers, it is as much an issue of contrast with a cooler background as it is heat coming out of the engines. If I understand the idea behind the paint correctly, it is to reduce the temp difference between the aircraft and a cooler background

[Brasidas]

Read the last post at this link:

 

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&...t=411296&page=2

 

With newer IIR seekers, it is as much an issue of contrast with a cooler background as it is heat coming out of the engines.  If I understand the idea behind the paint correctly, it is to reduce the temp difference between the aircraft and a cooler background

250337[/snapback]

 

I read that post, and that poster doesn't know shit.

 

Definitely not about pinnacle landings (one rotor in and one rotor out of ground effect) and how that differs from taking off from a latitudinally assymetric take off at rest on a ship.

 

The paint will not reduce the temp difference between an engine exhaust and naked air. Ain't gonna happen. Third generation IR seekers are quite a bit more sophisticated than SA-7s and SA-14s. Flares don't fool them, and enhancing IR diffusion by 10 degrees Fahrenheit isn't enough of a change when you're talking exhaust temps in the neighborhood of 800 deg F.

 

If someone says they are using some "IR paint" to help spoof some obsolete 1st and 2nd gen IR seekers, then they're wasting resources and time because the newest passive/active countermeasures in development will make paint a moot issue at best.

 

The best part of this guy's post was about "melting" runways and landing decks. I nearly laughed my ass off then. Anyone who has worked night ops, has seen fighters taking off with full AB. The exhaust plume is about 6 to 12 feet long, and when the nose pulls up with engines at full AB, the exhaust plume (red, orange, or purple-blue depending on the engine) scatters across the runways like liquid fire. Not once did I see the "burn hole repair team" run out and fix the burn holes between take offs. There is no special "deck treatment" on LPHs, LHAs, or LHDs, it's freakin non-skid, just like the deck surface is in the rest of the navy, and I guarantee you, the exhaust of a Harrier is way less heat than the heat of an afterburning J-79.

 

Addendum:

 

Hmmm, obviously I didn't read the last post.

 

It's still BS. The aircraft IR sig isn't going to be materially impacted enough to affect a modern 3rd gen IR seeker. Color me highly skeptical.

Edited November 24, 2005 by Brasidas

[Macarthur]

Didin't notice this earlier but check out the visible markings on both air craft, the 'weird' one has plenty, including a two digit identifier, a stars and bars emblem and U.S. Marines stenciled on the side as well as the standard array of safety and reference arrows while the 'regular' one lacks any apparent external markings.

Just an interesting thing I noticed. Any ideas why this is?

[mcantu]

Here's a couple of comments from that ARFCOM thread that I linked to earlier from someone who works for Boeing:

 

Let me give everybody some inside information on that aircraft in question. I work in the Amarillo plant that does final assembly as a liasion avionics engineer for Boeing. We build the fuselage and install the avionics package (80% of the aircraft )and deliver it to Bell plant where they build and install the powertrain, wing assembley and final flight testing before delivery. From a production standpoint, that is aircraft 59 which translates to the 59th MV-22 off the production line. What the actual assigned Marine tail number is, I do not know. Aircraft 59 was delivered approx 2-3 months ago. 59 was delivered out of sequence late due to having a production "accident" of falling off of some jacks during the production cycle and sustained damage to some of the structure around the jacking points. During this time of remanufacture to the aircraft, it was decided to apply this one off paint job. As others have spoken, it is a test paint job for IR to be evaluted later and as of this writing is a one off job not seen on any other CV/MV-22 aircraft.

 

As for some of the critics, fore the most part they do not know what they talk of. Most negative opinion has been formed from the liberal press and anti-military politicians that do not want to see any new systems get fielded, let alone a revolutionary/evolutionary one like the tilt-rotor concept in the V-22. The stories of it being a "Marine killer" is a buzz word thrown out to mold opinion based on emotion rather than fact. While it is fact crashes have occured and tragic loss of life has happened, when compared to other platforms in service, the V-22 has had the same growing pains any other system had when in development to include those that were operator error.

 

Other complain about cost. The reality is the V-22 has been a political football of a program. On again and off again from the politicians has made the high cost where they are now. The good news is that if full commitment from the Pentagon to buy 450+ is held, this will lower the per unit cost over time.

 

The aircraft is quite capabile and marvel to work around. I have worked many other fixed and rotory wing type aircraft and only find the V-22 marginally more difficult to work IMHO but even that gets better every day. While I am biased to a certain degree I can see only two complaints that are valid IMHO. One is that the cabin space is slightly smaller than the CH-46 it was designed to replace. The second is that defensive gun positions are very limited. Other than that, I would have no problems personally flying on or any of our future troops going to war in this aircraft with properly trained flight crew.

 

**Disclaimer**

Opinions expressed above are my personal own and do not reflect any official view of the corporate partners that build the V-22

 

Hootbro

Originally Posted By COLE-CARBINE:

First off let me say thanks for your insight. Second, so what's up with the different paint scheme?

 

 

What I know of the paint is that it has some type of IR (infra-red) suppression qualities to it. I.E. makes it less of a heat signature for heat seeking missles. It has other counter measure properties but I can not go into that.

 

Also, the MV-22 just passed OP EVAL for the Marine Corp this Sept-Oct. This means the Marine Corp has flight tested and evaluted it as fit for production and enter into service. Review has been sent to the Pentagon and approved. What this means is that Congress can now start funding full rate production for the comming years. With the exception of some cold weather testing, the aircraft at PAX river will start to be dispersed to the various training and active duty sites for flight crew training. Starting with A/C 70, these will be the "Block B" aircraft that will be fit for service and deployabile assets.

 

Hootbro

[Brasidas]

Here's a couple of comments from that ARFCOM thread that I linked to earlier from someone who works for Boeing:

250382[/snapback]

 

Hey. Got an idea. Let's think about the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

 

Simple stuff. Pretty obvious. Says, you can't do better than break even in entropy in any process, and if you don't break even, it will only increase. IOW, you can't stop thermal energy transmitting from hot areas (exhaust) to cold (atmosphere). Here's an even funnier observation. Putting a layer of "paint" on an object several hundred degrees warmer than ambient air temperatures, and claiming it will hide the IR signature of the object from an IR array designed to seek it, is pretty damn out there, just FYI. Additionally, having a decent amount of recent experience with IR seeker logic, any wet dreams anyone has about IR paint, in any way foiling modern seekers, is, to put it kindly, smoking dope.

[mcantu]

Hey. Got an idea. Let's think about the 2nd law of Thermodynamics.

 

Simple stuff. Pretty obvious. Says, you can't  do better than break even in entropy in any process, and if you don't break even, it will only increase. IOW, you can't stop thermal energy transmitting from hot areas (exhaust) to cold (atmosphere). Here's an even funnier observation. Putting a layer of "paint" on an object several hundred degrees warmer than ambient air temperatures, and claiming it will hide the IR signature of the object from an IR array designed to seek it, is pretty damn out there, just FYI. Additionally, having a decent amount of recent experience with IR seeker logic, any wet dreams anyone has about IR paint, in any way foiling modern seekers, is, to put it kindly, smoking dope.

250394[/snapback]

 

Have you seen the spray on coatings made by Barracuda that almost completely conceal the IR sig of a ground vehicle?

[Brasidas]

Have you seen the spray on coatings  made by Barracuda that almost completely conceal the IR sig of a ground vehicle?

250549[/snapback]

 

Are you equating internal combustion engine exhaust temps to turbine exhaust temps?

 

Are you saying paint can now violate the second law of thermodynamics?

 

Also, what else did they do to the ground vehicle in question? Was it's engine running?

 

Additionally, how many IR spectral lines did they show you in that pic? Short wave? Mid wave? Long wave? Do you know?

 

Do you understand newer seekers will be multi-spectral within the IR domain?

 

[corrected]

Edited November 24, 2005 by Brasidas

[mcantu]

Boeing Develops Stealthy 'Topcoat' For F-22 Raptor

 

 

(Source : Boeing Co. ; issued March 23, 2000)

 

SEATTLE---The Boeing Company has developed a new paint that will reduce the F-22 Raptor's vulnerability to infrared threats. The paint, referred to as a "topcoat,'' was applied today to the second F-22 at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

 

Boeing developed the topcoat to protect the aircraft against threats that use a broad range of wavelengths. The new paint replaces conventional topcoats, performing all the required environmentally protective functions while also reducing vulnerability to detection.

 

The new topcoat does not add to the F-22's weight, and provides performance enhancement at a very modest cost. It is applied in a two-tone camouflage design, patterned after the F-15 "Mod-Eagle'' paint scheme.

 

Boeing began developing the new paint during the early stages of the F-22 program. Since that time, a small team in Seattle has worked to refine the paint and improve its application characteristics in the production environment.

 

While F-22 teammate Lockheed Martin will paint the first few aircraft by hand, robotic application is planned. Raptor 04 will be next to receive its new topcoat. Each application is expected to take one to two days.

 

-ends-

 

Take a look at the side bar on page 2 of this Boeing Newsletter:

 

http://www.boeing.com/rotorcraft/military/...times/feb03.pdf

 

And also page 2 of this US Navy document

 

US Navy MV22

ECP-###: Lightweight Paint, improves aircraft suitability and reduces IR Vulnerability.

And this from a briefing on the V-22:

Susceptibility. Here's something else that I don't think the V-22 gets enough credit for. This is what make it win all the COWIAS (ph). It has an IR signature that's really unprecedented. We have a classified part of the program that I can't discuss too much about, but we've painted this airplane. First of all it has a--let me just show you this real quick. If you look, all the other airplanes, all other helicopters have the engines mounted right next to the transmission. They do that because they want to reduce the length of the shaft that drives the transmission. So these airplanes have these engines mounted right along the fuselage. They're typically metal, aluminum, and they heat up the fuselage itself so the IR signature is significant. The V-22 has its engines mounted on the wing tips, so there's no fuselage to heat up. The airplane's made out of composites, and it has an engine fire suppressor, an engine suppressor system in the back that prevents both visual IR and reduces the heat signature by the prop rotors dissipating it very quickly IR signature is lower than any other helicopter out there. Then you take this--next slide.

 

Here's our new paint job, pretty sporty. This will take us to another level. Painting another helicopter that's hot already makes no difference. This paint won't make any difference, but this will take us to very new levels. And I can use the word "unprecedented." Next slide.

 

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/ind...ge=v22symposium

Edited November 25, 2005 by mcantu

[JOE BRENNAN]

An aircraft (or ship) can be thought of having three components of IR signature: hot metal of engine or exhaust system; exhaust plume; and signature of the body of the vehicle beside the exhaust system (which you might further subdivide into components). Paint would be used to deal with the third not the first, as the press statement about V-22's paint implies.

 

Early uncooled Lead-Sulphide IR seekers were most sensitive in the same (short wavelength) IR frequency band where most of the energy is emitted by hot metal in the exhaust system, potentially including piston exhaust pipes, eg. vulnerability of A-1's to Sa-7's in late Vietnam. But that metal can be physically shielded by cooler metal not in contact with it (article mentions the issue of engine heating a whole surrounding area too), and simple hot burning decoys also emit a lot of their energy in the same band.

 

Later IR seekers and IR imaging systems look at IR spectra (mainly longer wavelength) where the exhaust plume and reflection/emission from the body of the vehicle (directly or indirectly from the sun's energy, or from aerodynamic frictional heating for faster planes) are important IR sources. Plume is dealt with on rotary wing a/c and gas turbine ships by supressors that mix ambient air with the exhaust (plus shield hot metal from view). Coatings are a method to deal with the reflection and emission from the body not directly due to engine heat.

 

Here's before/after Imaging IR views of Avenger class MCM vessels in std haze gray v. relatively simple Low Solar Absorbtion paint, from a Proceedings article some years back. But, it's hard to find open source info giving specific IR seeker or surveillance system envelope reductions (and/or IR decoy performance enhancements, less energy needed to mask the target) from these seemingly significant IR signature reductions.

 

Joe

 

Edited November 25, 2005 by JOE BRENNAN

[Guest pfcem]

So it appears that the paint job is more likely intended to reduce the MV-22B's IR signature than its RCS.

[Brasidas]

So it appears that the paint job is more likely intended to reduce the MV-22B's IR signature than its RCS.

250772[/snapback]

 

No modern seeker will have a problem with tracking a profile that distinct.

 

The one thing it may be good for, is reducing the chances of being detected via IR.

[Guest pfcem]

No modern seeker will have a problem with tracking a profile that distinct.

 

The one thing it may be good for, is reducing the chances of being detected via IR.

251022[/snapback]

Exactly.

 

Reducing the chances or range of detection = increased survivability.

[Brasidas]

Exactly.

 

Reducing the chances or range of detection = increased survivability.

251026[/snapback]

 

My assertion has always been that IR-suppressing paint won't materially affect the chances of a modern seeker to have a successful intercept. Changing the IR signature to another spectral line than that displayed in the pics is only part of the story. Believe marketing material at your own risk.

[lucklucky]

Range or add a little bit of rain and some fog and that can be the diference between life or death

[Brasidas]

Range or add a little bit of rain and some fog and that can be the diference between life or death

251092[/snapback]

 

*sigh*

 

Greatest IR threat is from manpads. Want to make a big difference in survivability, make the aircraft quieter. The operator of manpads typically do not sight the missle in IR, they just hold the reticle on the A/C using eyesight until they get a "lock" indication from the seeker, then fire.

 

Otherwise, you can use an active countermeasure, such as a DIRCM.