[Nimrod48]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

Thanks for the info FVD. I still do not agree about the propriety of sarcasm; in my view it simply lowers one to the level of the guy who is speaking from ignorance, but that is just a matter of opinion.

Regarding the aircraft coating, if you can say (and I'm guessing you may not be free to do so), is it now at a stage where the coating matches the life of the airframe or does it require replacement/replenishment during service and, if so, how often?

I am playing catch up as far as modern aircraft technology goes having only returned to the subject after a 40 year lapse about the same time as joining this forum, the article was meant to be a datum point to measure the advance in stealth applications. not to pull the stuffing out of other peoples teddy bears.
As for the sarcasm in FVDs response its water off a ducks back we can all get a bit tetchy on our pet subjects, but I will still regard him as an officer & a gentleman.

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

Thanks for the info FVD. I still do not agree about the propriety of sarcasm; in my view it simply lowers one to the level of the guy who is speaking from ignorance, but that is just a matter of opinion.

Regarding the aircraft coating, if you can say (and I'm guessing you may not be free to do so), is it now at a stage where the coating matches the life of the airframe or does it require replacement/replenishment during service and, if so, how often?

OC,

First regarding the coatings: I can tell you it still does not match the life of the airframe. They still require occasional maintenance. You can find this out by reading Aviation Week and other open source documentation. This is the case even for the F-22. In fact an article in Aviation Week stated that maintaining low observability (LO) on the F-22 is the single most demanding maintenance item on that aircraft, although you have to understand that the maintenance on the Raptor is in general pretty low compared to legacy fighters (thanks to excellent design and advances in avionics reliability and built-in-tests. For example, the AESA radar antenna is essentially maintenance-free due to its design). F-22 availability rates during deployments (such as Red Flag a year ago, or the deployment to Japan) have been outstanding. LO maintenance is just one more thing to do, just as engine maintenance, hydraulics, electrical systems, life support systems, fuel systems, etc... Modern jets still require a lot of attention, though far, far less than previous generation aircraft such as the F-14, F-111, F-4, etc... In fact high maintenance was a key factor in the decision to retire the F-14 (rather than upgrade them with new avionics, for example).

Now about the sarcasm issue: what really gets me is people trying to get in their cheap shots by quickly Google-ing some article written by some know-nothing journalist, or spouting ignorant blurbs based on nothing more than a hunch or hear-say, and somehow using that as an entry into a thread where someone (that would be me in this instance) takes the time and effort to explain something based on experience as a former fighter pilot, and as an airpower SME (yes, that's what I get paid for by the Air Force these days). I' ve dedicated 30+ years of my life to air warfare in general (not counting my many years reading about aviation as a kid), as a combat pilot and in other related capacities. Plus I still take the time to inform myself using a wide variety of sources, and happen to work in an environment where I meet, every single day, pilots and aircrew from just about every type aircraft in the Air Force (and often, though not daily, from other services and other countries). So no, I don't take kindly to those who just come in an push their little agenda without having done ANY homework whatsoever.

Furthermore, these ignoramuses (ignorami?) don't understand that the important thing is not to win the argument against me. I certainly don't try to win the argument against them, as I know they are in general too biased to come off their stance. I coudn't care less. Everything I write in these threads is for the benefit of those anonymous third parties who might read them and actually want to learn something useful, and whose minds aren't already made up. I like it when people really want to know about these things. It's important for taxpayers to know the truth about what they are paying for, and to know about the importance of airpower for their nation. I for one firmly believe that ideas have consequences. And I prefer squashing bad ideas in the bud, before they end up doing too much damage.

There have been threads on this forum where I disagreed with someone, but repected their views because they had done their homework and made valid, detailed, documented points (for example, Shawn's take on the M-4 Sherman a few months back). But I reserve the right to put hacks back in their place by the most expeditious means possible, and it turns out sarcasm works well in these cases. If I had more time I might choose a different weapon, but I have no time to waste with that ilk; they are just getting in the way of those who honestly want to find out something interesting from a perspective they might not easily get access to otherwise. Not everything is always black and white (in fact most things aren't), but I know raw BS when I see it and I don't mind saying so.

If that displeases you, so be it. Truth is more important than the possibility of irking someone. Ideas have consequences.

FVD

[Cardinal]

FVD, you make valid points. However, leadership (based on expertise) and humility, are also not mutually exclusive ...

[jim]

I have just been reading through this thread and as a Brit what concerns me is that In my view FVD is correct about the Typhoon.

I liken it to upgrading my car to a new model, its in essence much the same as the last one but a little faster or maybe better equipped but still more of the same.

Considering the time and money taken to produce the Typhoon I expected better.

I have no doubt its a mean dogfighter er yes er hm now what do I say?
Well , it looks good and makes a lot of noise, and its very agile.
Its a bit like a Samuri warrior posing in front of a guy with a gun, (remember Harrison Ford) BANG end of story.

The Stealth concept is a proven weapon that works, lets face it if you can't see the guy how do you shoot him down?

With my very limited knowledge I am on the side of stealth everytime even if I have to repaint it every six months or whatever.

[jim]

Just to add something to the discussion,

several years ago I remember the makers of the British Rapier missile system claiming that they could track the stealth aircraft and claimed to have film of this.

Anyone know if this was/is true or just so much hot air?

[tank nut]

They could sure track it today, just look for the smoke cloud

[Old Crow]

Thanks for the information, FVD. If aviation were my profession, I would have and take the time to study available sources for the information you have provided but unfortunately I can barely keep up with the endless professional publications I must read to stay on the cutting edge of my profession. Thus, I appreciate it when those who are better informed, such as you, are able and willing to share information.

I recall reading an article about an all-out program by Lockheed to re-engineer systems of the Raptor to save weight. Did that effort achieve the needed result and did it compomise stealth characteristics? I remember some of the design changes were pretty ingenious and Lockheed employees received nice bonuses for their creativity.

How does the Raptor maintain its low observability when it releases weapons from its internal bay, or is that even an issue? And is it accurate that the Raptor uses radar absorbing material only on some portions of the airframe (unlike the F-117), and does that contribute to minimizing the maintenance issues?

Personally, I could care less about the sarcasm (unless it is directed at me and then I will certainly return it in spades). And I agree that there are always some dolts who speak first and think second (or perhaps never). My point is simply that the sarcasm may defeat your stated intention (writing for the edification of anonymous third parties). Sarcasm tends to diminish the impression of objective intellectual analysis and may cause some to dismiss or minimize otherwise cogent observations, no matter how authoritative the words.

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by jim

Just to add something to the discussion,

several years ago I remember the makers of the British Rapier missile system claiming that they could track the stealth aircraft and claimed to have film of this.

Anyone know if this was/is true or just so much hot air?

Jim,

There are two kinds of Rapier batteries: the original version (as used in the Falklands) is optical-tracking only, and if they mean they optically tracked a B-2 on final approach to an airbase where Rapier units usually are located) in broad daylight and slow speed, that's a very weak claim. So what?

It is possible however, that this referred to the newer Rapier systems which were retrofitted with radar tracking capability. In this case, two things: US stealth planes normally fly with radar-enhancing devices tacked on when they are not on a combat mission or a combat training mission (let's say they just fly to an airshow, or on a ferry mission). This is true of the F-117. B-2, and F-22 (and presumably F-35, though I don't know for sure in that case). So again, what's the big deal? And even if it were true that they tracked one without these devices on, remember that the Rapier is a very short range, and low altitude missile system designed for point-defense. A B-2 is not completely invisible to radar, only much more difficult to find/track compared to normal aircraft. If it gets very, very close to a Rapier battery, it's quite possible it could be picked up anyway, at least temporarily. This is irrelevant to a combat situation, however, where the B-2 would be flying at altitudes and ranges where it would be practically impossible for the Rapier to track it (in fact the missile couldn't even reach it anyway, even if it could track it).

Bottom line: story could be true, but likely has no relevance any assessment of the B-2's capabilities. Or else I'd have to know much more about he actual circumstances.

FVD

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Old Crow

Thanks for the information, FVD. If aviation were my profession, I would have and take the time to study available sources for the information you have provided but unfortunately I can barely keep up with the endless professional publications I must read to stay on the cutting edge of my profession. Thus, I appreciate it when those who are better informed, such as you, are able and willing to share information.

I recall reading an article about an all-out program by Lockheed to re-engineer systems of the Raptor to save weight. Did that effort achieve the needed result and did it compomise stealth characteristics? I remember some of the design changes were pretty ingenious and Lockheed employees received nice bonuses for their creativity.

How does the Raptor maintain its low observability when it releases weapons from its internal bay, or is that even an issue? And is it accurate that the Raptor uses radar absorbing material only on some portions of the airframe (unlike the F-117), and does that contribute to minimizing the maintenance issues?

Personally, I could care less about the sarcasm (unless it is directed at me and then I will certainly return it in spades). And I agree that there are always some dolts who speak first and think second (or perhaps never). My point is simply that the sarcasm may defeat your stated intention (writing for the edification of anonymous third parties). Sarcasm tends to diminish the impression of objective intellectual analysis and may cause some to dismiss or minimize otherwise cogent observations, no matter how authoritative the words.

OC, you are asking question that are now beyond my ability to answer accurately. Not necessarily because it's "top secret" or anything like that (though some of it might be), but because I am not, nor have I been, part of the design team for the F-22, and I have never flown the jet myself or worked with its maintainers. I certainly can't comment on what proportion of the airframe is covered in RAM on either jet: I truly don't know exactly. I do know some areas of the aircraft need more coating that others because of the geometry of the design, but that's about it.

All I know is that massive improvements in LO maintenance have been made between the F-117 (and B-2), and the F-22/F-35 generation. LO maintenance is still non-trivial, but it is much easier than it used to be.

As far as LO characteristics when weapons bays are open, you bet: with bays open, that increases radar cross-section by a lot (at least from certain angles)! That's why the mechanism is ultra-fast (if you have seen the F-22 airshow demo, you know what I mean, although in that case, the pilot leaves the door open longer than in combat, so the public has time to see). This (relatively small, but not to be completely ignored) problem is also dealt with by proper tactics.

One should remember that stealth itself is not a cure-all. It is not a perfect "cloaking device." It is yet another dimension in the survivability equation, along with speed (which is why supercruise is so important in the F-22), altitude, tactics, electronic warfare capabilities (passive and active), sensors, threat avoidance (routing optimization), etc... The stealth dimension does complicate the enemy's job immensely (probably by at least one order of magnitude), but it doesn't make it "impossible." I know for a fact that steath assets don't go trolling down the middle of enemy defenses without much prior planning of all the above factors. They don't assume they are invulnerable.

But I do know this: there are many possible situations in future wars where without stealth, your chances of surviving rapidly approach zero. Stealth at least gives you a realistic chance of winning in those situations. This has been shown time and time again by the combat employment of the F-117, which was able to survive in environments where other jets (such as the F-16 or Tornado in Desert Storm) could not and took some serious loses. And air defense systems have only gotten better in the meantime. So any nation that ignores the stealth dimension in the design of a modern combat aircraft is doing so at its own peril, or at least they have to be aware that there will be many missions where they will either have to stand on the sideline and watch the US do it, or expose their aircrew to near-insurmountable risk and accept the probable losses.

In comparisson, dogfighting ability is totally irrelevant (particularly in an age of helmet-mounted sights and high-angle-off-boresight missiles).

FVD

[FormerViperDriver]

Originally Posted by Nimrod48

I am playing catch up as far as modern aircraft technology goes having only returned to the subject after a 40 year lapse about the same time as joining this forum, the article was meant to be a datum point to measure the advance in stealth applications. not to pull the stuffing out of other peoples teddy bears.
As for the sarcasm in FVDs response its water off a ducks back we can all get a bit tetchy on our pet subjects, but I will still regard him as an officer & a gentleman.

Hey, thanks Nimrod. Glad to see you kept your perspective.

Any TSR.2 fan has got to be a good man in my view...

FVD