All Things Stealth

[Josh]

I've no doubt that a J-20 can track an F-35; the key question is "at what range". That is not something either side is going to give us.

[bfng3569]

interesting article, HAVE GLASS stealthy coatings and other coatings, mainly targeted at the F-16`.

And apparently WD-40 on paint is more radar reflective....

 

https://www.key.aero/article/have-glass-making-f-16-less-observable

[glenn239]

3 hours ago, Josh said:

I've no doubt that a J-20 can track an F-35; the key question is "at what range". That is not something either side is going to give us.

Article suggested 80km.

[bfng3569]

 

New pattern on the coating/material

 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/navy-f-35c-surfaces-wearing-new-mirror-like-skin

 

 

 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

 

[Loopycrank]

I really, really, really doubt that the paintjob that we can see in service F-35s is the stealth layer.

Consider the following:

-Open source marketing materials have referred to their being some sort of counter-IR topcoat.

-Radar tends to return off of interfaces in the surface of an aircraft with a large change in dielectric constant, and that includes panel gaps ('cause that's an air to metal interface).  This tendency is so strong that in ages past, incorrectly tensioned fasteners leaving a larger than normal gap or scratches in RAM were noted to have compromised RCS.

Which leads to what I think is the most logical conclusion; the IR-suppressing top coat is radar-transparent, and serves double duty in both reducing IR emissions from the aircraft skin and protecting the RAM underneath from scratches and dings.

Also, if I can figure this out, so can the Russians and Chinese.  Therefore it is reasonable to assume that having the actual outermost layer of the aircraft's skin be radar-absorbing is a thing of the past.  Keeping that layer pristine was, as we know from the example of the F-117, just too much of a pain.

[Stuart Galbraith]

They probably just put a vinyl wrap on it. It is VX-9 after all, they have a reputation to live up to.

[KV7]

16 hours ago, Loopycrank said:

I really, really, really doubt that the paintjob that we can see in service F-35s is the stealth layer.

Consider the following:

-Open source marketing materials have referred to their being some sort of counter-IR topcoat.

-Radar tends to return off of interfaces in the surface of an aircraft with a large change in dielectric constant, and that includes panel gaps ('cause that's an air to metal interface).  This tendency is so strong that in ages past, incorrectly tensioned fasteners leaving a larger than normal gap or scratches in RAM were noted to have compromised RCS.

Which leads to what I think is the most logical conclusion; the IR-suppressing top coat is radar-transparent, and serves double duty in both reducing IR emissions from the aircraft skin and protecting the RAM underneath from scratches and dings.

Also, if I can figure this out, so can the Russians and Chinese.  Therefore it is reasonable to assume that having the actual outermost layer of the aircraft's skin be radar-absorbing is a thing of the past.  Keeping that layer pristine was, as we know from the example of the F-117, just too much of a pain.

Even better would be a transparent to absorbing gradient, which you could do with multiple coats.

[bfng3569]

10 hours ago, KV7 said:

Even better would be a transparent to absorbing gradient, which you could do with multiple coats.

 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone

from an earlier article

The general layout of the metallic coating on this F-35C is nearly identical to what we have seen on the F-22, including the scalloped edges mid-way across the wing. These new images do show one thing new — that the coating appears to be translucent, allowing the markings on the jet to show through below the coating, but only from certain angles. This makes sense considering how the coating goes from polished to matte to somewhat shiny looking depending on the aspect you are viewing it from.

[bfng3569]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/bandaged-b-2-bomber-returns-to-its-birth-place-for-major-repairs

[lucklucky]

B-21 Raider presentation in about 1 hour

https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/b-21-raider/

Edited December 2, 2022 by lucklucky

[lucklucky]

https://www.reuters.com/business/aerospace-defense/japan-britain-italy-announce-joint-fighter-project-early-next-week-sources-2022-12-02/

Japan, Britain and Italy to announce joint fighter project as early as next week - sources

[bfng3569]

2 hours ago, lucklucky said:

B-21 Raider presentation in about 1 hour

https://www.northropgrumman.com/what-we-do/air/b-21-raider/

https://youtu.be/chJlJgrvfBY

[Renegade334]

[bfng3569]

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/this-is-the-b-21-raider-stealth-bomber

 

for comparison.....

 

Edited December 3, 2022 by bfng3569

[Renegade334]

So far they've only been showcasing it from this angle... (they did the same thing for the B-2, too)

Edited December 3, 2022 by Renegade334

[Angrybk]

What's even the point of this thing, given the expenditures? It's not like any other countries have anything close to the B2. 

[bfng3569]

2 minutes ago, Angrybk said:

What's even the point of this thing, given the expenditures? It's not like any other countries have anything close to the B2. 

🙄

wish i lived in your bubble......

[JamesR]

We only a a handful of air worthy B2s.  

[Josh]

Doesn’t look like there’s any surprises. Smaller than B-2 with only two wheeled landing gears indicating a much lighter weight. B-2 shape, though likely with a single tail. Recessed intakes.  Was any other info released? I think the only number I’ve ever heard is a payload of 30,000+ lbs.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Its got just the same gear configuration from the B2 as far as I can tell.

Its certainly smaller, maybe even as much as 25 percent smaller. Its clearly got a smoother configuration. Possibly this points to a flying testbed that was reported flying around about 10 years ago. Judging by the full width of the apparent bomb bay, and the smaller and more recessed engines, Im wondering if its possible that this has just 2 engines instead of 4, to free up extra room? Would make it fun to make a single engine landing, but then I guess in a B2, a single engine failure could become two anyway.

The Roswell saucer sure polished up nice.

 

 

 

[seahawk]

Amazing what you can see from a pic of the front.

[Der Zeitgeist]

My own theory about the moderate costs and relatively speedy development of the B-21 program is that it's probably less advanced than they would make us believe.

The real technical innovations now used in the B-21 have likely already been developed for the RQ-180 (which is "coincidentally", also a product by Northrop Grumman😏). I guess those black projects out in the desert are useful after all....

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Or possibly technology from an as yet unrevealed tech demonstrator...

https://deepbluehorizon.blogspot.com/2014/04/texas-mystery-aircraft-also.html

[Mike1158]

Or, they have allowed for a constant development and addition of ability over time, allowing the base airframe to be launched more efficiently/quickly.

One over riding issue with historic development has been the changing requirement.  Parliaments/governments change and they step into projects to change them.  Develop more quickly while allowing more efficient development going forwards, can reduce the destructive impact different political groups can have.

NGAD is supposed to work the same way.

Anything that reduces the ability of politicians to micro manage and/or destroy projects is to the good considering how much money and time has been wasted like this in the past.