All Things Stealth

[Josh]

On 5/15/2025 at 8:36 AM, Ol Paint said:

Just Trump-talk, or anything more substantial?
 

TBD.

Doug

Total bullshit from a senile old man who never in his life even bothered to understand the concept of lift. His goldfish mind will move on to other things, perhaps that wall he never built or the replacement healthcare plan that was supposed to be so amazing a decade ago.

Even were Trump to try to redirect the DoDs aircraft programs, it seems unlikely Republican Congressmen would let him do so if it interferes with any business in their district. Dems will block anything he does by default.

My read is that Trump apparently watched five minutes of a history channel show and decided he was an aeronautical engineer for a day.

Edited May 18 by Josh

[rmgill]

Early Stealth...

Yehudi System... it used an array of lights matched to ambient light. 
 

 

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah, Coastal Command used them on the leading edge of B24's. But they had difficulty getting the illumination to match the sky behind the aircraft.

[Josh]

It could be done far more easily now with LCD lighting. The reason I think it probably is not in use on aircraft like B-21 and “RQ-180” is because the thermal signature stands out more anyway.

Edited June 2 by Josh

[Stuart Galbraith]

You could, in theory, create a system alternating sensors and lcds, and make from various angles an aircraft invisible. I read somewhere the British (quinetiq) were experimenting with this on vehicles in the 1990s before they gave up on it. I dont think the technology was yet there, and to be honest even if you did make a tank invisible in the visible spectrum, its not going to do anything for its IR signature. Its also going to cost an arm and a leg, and become useless as soon as the vehicle gets a splash of mud.

Aircraft I see even less point now. Maybe for assault helicopters, but combat aircraft? We seem to be increasingly keen on going to long range engagements, doingfighting is getting a bit passe.

[Josh]

8 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

You could, in theory, create a system alternating sensors and lcds, and make from various angles an aircraft invisible. I read somewhere the British (quinetiq) were experimenting with this on vehicles in the 1990s before they gave up on it. I dont think the technology was yet there, and to be honest even if you did make a tank invisible in the visible spectrum, its not going to do anything for its IR signature. Its also going to cost an arm and a leg, and become useless as soon as the vehicle gets a splash of mud.

Aircraft I see even less point now. Maybe for assault helicopters, but combat aircraft? We seem to be increasingly keen on going to long range engagements, doingfighting is getting a bit passe.

For ground vehicles it is pointless. Active thermal camouflage is the way to go, or just passive shrouds. You could probably make an aircraft almost invisible for practical purposes, but again thermal management against IRST systems would be far more relevant, especially at high altitude.

I could see optical camo being relevant for Type 2-3 stealth UAVs like the XRQ-73. Once you suppress the IR and acoustic signature with a hybrid propulsion, the next step would be reducing its visibility from the ground. If simple incandescent bulbs could be effective, LCDs matching the sky coloration/weather would be supremely difficult to pick out. This would hardly be difficult even using commercial tech, if you were willing to settle for a single color matched roughly to the sky directly above.

[Stuart Galbraith]

1 minute ago, Josh said:

For ground vehicles it is pointless. Active thermal camouflage is the way to go, or just passive shrouds. You could probably make an aircraft almost invisible for practical purposes, but again thermal management against IRST systems would be far more relevant, especially at high altitude.

I could see optical camo being relevant for Type 2-3 stealth UAVs like the XRQ-73. Once you suppress the IR and acoustic signature with a hybrid propulsion, the next step would be reducing its visibility from the ground. If simple incandescent bulbs could be effective, LCDs matching the sky coloration/weather would be supremely difficult to pick out. This would hardly be difficult even using commercial tech, if you were willing to settle for a single color matched roughly to the sky directly above.

If its got any utility, Id say it would be useful for small drones, ones you can park for surveillance purposes. Although I think the battery pack to give 360 degree visual suppression wouldnt be cheap, particularly if you consider any optics or uplink you have to keep operative. I guess batteries seem to be scaling up almost like Moores law, if only comparing what im using now in my RC tanks compared to what I was using 25 years ago.

[Josh]

1 hour ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

If its got any utility, Id say it would be useful for small drones, ones you can park for surveillance purposes. Although I think the battery pack to give 360 degree visual suppression wouldnt be cheap, particularly if you consider any optics or uplink you have to keep operative. I guess batteries seem to be scaling up almost like Moores law, if only comparing what im using now in my RC tanks compared to what I was using 25 years ago.

I think it could be useful for low altitude UAVs that already had a lot of acoustic and IR suppression that had sufficient energy density (read: hybrid combustion types). Niche use, but potentially very useful to make a drone have almost no radar, thermal, acoustic, or visual cues that are easily identified by automation (realistically what you are really concerned about in terms of threat identification is algorithms, not people). If you can sufficiently blur everything across spectrum, you can make initial detection and identification hard.

I do not think it makes any sense for a grounded USV; simply not moving is probably sufficient with out added weight or expense.

[Stuart Galbraith]

Depends on the environment. If it was countryside Id agree with you, but if its urban, its likely to stand out. Unless you design it to look like a heat extractor or Chimney....

[Josh]

16 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

Depends on the environment. If it was countryside Id agree with you, but if its urban, its likely to stand out. Unless you design it to look like a heat extractor or Chimney....

Why would that matter at several thousand feet?

[bfng3569]

more pics....

https://www.twz.com/air/chinas-j-36-very-heavy-stealth-tactical-jet-photographed-head-on-for-first-time

 

 

[bfng3569]

https://www.twz.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/06/new-j-36-ground-parked-image.jpg

 

[Josh]

Does confirm the suspected side by side seating and bomb bays.

[Stuart Galbraith]

As the dorsal air intake is so out of keeping with the rest of the aircraft, I almost have to wonder if its a temporary lashup, pending more powerful engines.

[Josh]

4 hours ago, Stuart Galbraith said:

As the dorsal air intake is so out of keeping with the rest of the aircraft, I almost have to wonder if its a temporary lashup, pending more powerful engines.

General consensus at SecretProjects is that this would be far too complicated of a change and that the use of WS-10/WS-15 (almost certainly the latter) will be production standard, at least until an adaptive replacement is developed.

[DB]

Bloomberg is reporting that the F-35 programme has been cut in half.

Given that the USMC is apparently already pivoting away from the B model due to range limitations in the Pacific, plus stories that the engine variant may not be able to service the planned avionics upgrades, I think that the B is soon to be an ex parrot.

[sunday]

10 minutes ago, DB said:

Bloomberg is reporting that the F-35 programme has been cut in half.

Given that the USMC is apparently already pivoting away from the B model due to range limitations in the Pacific, plus stories that the engine variant may not be able to service the planned avionics upgrades, I think that the B is soon to be an ex parrot.

Bad news for countries needing a AV-8 replacement.

[TrustMe]

33 minutes ago, DB said:

Bloomberg is reporting that the F-35 programme has been cut in half.

Given that the USMC is apparently already pivoting away from the B model due to range limitations in the Pacific, plus stories that the engine variant may not be able to service the planned avionics upgrades, I think that the B is soon to be an ex parrot.

 

Given that the UK requires the B for it's aircraft carriers (and maybe the Japanese and worst korea) I can't see the B ending construction any time soon.

 

 

[Josh]

1 hour ago, DB said:

Bloomberg is reporting that the F-35 programme has been cut in half.

Given that the USMC is apparently already pivoting away from the B model due to range limitations in the Pacific, plus stories that the engine variant may not be able to service the planned avionics upgrades, I think that the B is soon to be an ex parrot.

USMC is switching to C because the USN wants them for their carriers. They would be all STOVL if they had absolute say. But yes, the B model is being orphaned.

[futon]

The USMC already has about 180 F-35Bs. Those are all going to be swapped for F-35Cs?

[Stuart Galbraith]

I guess this is predictable, in that the USMC expeditionary warfare capablity seems to be lasping with the obession of turning them into die in place missleers. Im sure we havent seen anything like that before.

[futon]

Even if they wanted to go all F-35C, the conversion rate with how current procurement rates look, even swapping 10 a year would be optimistic. But even if on average of 10, that means it'll take them 18 years to finish doing the swap. Or just do swap fo 10 years making 100ish aircraft swapped, and the rest are just retired with no replacement swap. Fill up with drones or wingmen or w/e.

Edited 21 hours ago by futon

[Stuart Galbraith]

Yeah, it seems nonsensical that they would just replace them all. For one thing its going to give them no fighter capability from the LPH's.

[Josh]

5 hours ago, futon said:

The USMC already has about 180 F-35Bs. Those are all going to be swapped for F-35Cs?

No, but most buys are C going forward. Forgot the exact numbers.

[seahawk]

It would be stupid to give up the option to turn LHDs in light carriers. But yes, 180 are enough for that role and the C is better in everything else.