F-35 Cancelled, then what ?

[a1bill]

TD, That's very true. As they are classified, no one who knows is going to give a number anyway. You just get the comparisons and it doesn't help when the bands aren't given.

[O-P]

Ken,

I have no idea what the F-18 E/Fs RCS actually is. However, I'll bet it was measured clean. If we strap on a pylon or two, tanks, AIM 120's, the odd 9x, pods various and a few bombs and I'll bet we are back into the 'barn door' arena.

Just saying. Oh, not trying to bicker or pick a fight.

[melmothtw]

Quote:
The F-35 is (allegedly) the first stealth platform whose RCS features are not maintenance intensive and whose characteristics are compatible with a typical carrier environment.


Only time in service will give the true answer and that hasn't happened yet.

True, time will tell, but having seen marine maintenance personnel walking all over the back of an F-35 at Eglin in the same way they would any current aircraft (normal attire, including boots) I have to agree with Ken on this one.

[Bastardeux]

Hold on, Ken, I stated a while ago that the T50 wasn't a truly stealthy aircraft, based on observation of the airframe (conventional canopy, conventional slats, etc.); yet now you're putting forward an argument that the F18 is stealthier?

You ridiculed that, and my postulation that development of the detection of stealth aircraft was inevitable, yet it seems both of my arguments are turning out to be true...

[LowObservable]

Ye're sincere faith is touchin', young Melmoth.

Here's a paper on the F-22's affordable stealth:

http://www.f22fighter.com/AffordableStealth.pdf

And here's the in-service reality:

Feature - LO: how the F-22 gets its stealth

Bonus: Photo of AF maintainer removing RAM with a hammer and chisel:

http://www.tyndall.af.mil/shared/med...-DY859-004.JPG

[a1bill]

LO, re the F-22 maintenance, I read it's being reskinned in the proposed updates. They are also currently using F-35 tech in the sealants.

The F-35 fibre matt/composite has been well tested over the years and they are happy with it.

[LowObservable]

LO, re the F-22 maintenance, I read it's being reskinned in the proposed updates.

Reference?

KenV - Your basic error is to assume (remember how we spell that word?) that features like blockers-versus-serpentine-ducts are indicative of RCS reduction across the entire design.

The Super H has a blocker because the Hornet configuration was never designed for LOS blockage and to change it in the Super was impracticable.

The T-50 has a blocker because the designers calculated that any aero losses would be less significant than the extra length and volume required for full LOS blockage in a serpentine duct alone. (It is, IMHO, a far more elegant configuration than the F-22.)

[KenV]

We'll see how that works out once it gets deployed a lot. Anyone who was a maintenance officer knows how things go as the planes get a lot of hours on them ... hopefully, the allegation/estimate is correct. However, I don't think I'll take that bet to Vegas.

Agreed.

This article contains SOME of the maintenance processes for maintaining an F-22:
Feature - LO: how the F-22 gets its stealth

Just a few excerpts from the article:
"The 325th Maintenance Squadron's Low Observable team and their contractor counterparts, Defense Support Systems, work to make sure the F-22s at Tyndall maintain their stealth capabilities by restoring and maintaining the low observable coatings on the jets. "
USAF dedicates an entire squadron just to maintain the stealth coating on their F-22s. That would be very problematic on a carrier.

"No one touches the aircraft and gets into the systems without LO having a part in that job," Senior Master Sgt. Angela Stovall, 325th MXS Fabrication flight chief, said.
A very problematic procedural limitation on a carrier. On a carrier, people are often used to push aircraft around on the flight deck, on the elevators, and on the hangar deck. That would be VERY hard to do without touching the aircraft.

"It can be very stressful at times, but when I'm out on the jet, I go into my zone. It is very meditative,"
I challenge anyone to find a "meditative" environment on a flight deck or hangar deck.

"Each week, LO does outer mold line inspections. This involves checking each jet's signature, which is makes an aircraft appear on detection devices. A very high signature equals a very low stealth capability leaving the jet exposed to radar. It is extremely essential..."
A weekly inspection of this sort would be highly problematic in a carrier environment.

Safety is a high priority during the entire process. The maintainer's personal protective equipment is designed to repel the harmful chemicals and debris that they might be exposed to while working with the coatings. Their PPE includes: a Tyvek protective over suit, a pair of gloves and a respirator.
Such toxins released during routine maintenance would be exceptionally problematic in a carrier environment. USN is VERY sensitive about the stuff that comes aboard their carriers. It took an extra two or three years for AMRAAM to get aboard USN's carriers because of USNs concerns with the AMRAAM's rocket motors. Back when USAF used JP-4, one of the first things that happened when a Navy jet flew on board after being refueled with JP-4 (either at a base or from a tanker) was to defuel the airplane. They did not allow JP-4 below the flight deck and would not allow JP-4 into the carrier's fuel storage tanks.

"LO has two climate controlled bays that are the ideal location for restorations, but due to constant need of LO restoration, these bays are never empty."
The requirement to have "climate controlled" maintenance bays would likely be a show stopper on a carrier. I can't even imagine how it would be done on the amphibs that USMC operate from. And I imagine it would at least be just as problematic on the UK's QE carriers.

I don't know if they've actually solved these maintenance issues on the F-35, but the F-35 is (allegedly) "carrier friendly." We'll have to wait and see if this is true or not and just what that means. But these issues further illustrate why USN will have more Super Hornets than F-35s for decades to come, and why it took so long for USN to get a stealthy fighter. So far, stealth technology has just not been compatible with a carrier environment. We'll have to wait and see if the tech has advanced enough to make stealth truly carrier friendly.

[KenV]

The Super H has a blocker because the Hornet configuration was never designed for LOS blockage and to change it in the Super was impracticable.

Generally agree.

The T-50 has a blocker because the designers calculated that any aero losses would be less significant than the extra length and volume required for full LOS blockage in a serpentine duct alone. (It is, IMHO, a far more elegant configuration than the F-22.)

Hmmmm. You're clearly claiming you know the Russians' design criteria, design trades, and design calculations. Good on you, but no, I would not call such a claim "humble". And for the record, I never remotely made any such claims. I only made TWO claims:

1. The blockers on the T-50 and the blockers on the Super Hornet resulted in aircraft with about the same RCS.

2. Russia's and Boeing's "far more elegant configuration" resulted in an RCS reduction orders of magnitude worse than the "less elegant" solution in the F-22 and F-35.

Anything beyond those two points is something I never said and would instead be something you "made up".

[glad rag]

So far, stealth technology has just not been compatible with a carrier environment. We'll have to wait and see if the tech has advanced enough to make stealth truly carrier friendly.

Indeed. I was castigated, quite a while back, for having the effrontery to ask how the stealth coatings would stand up to carrier/deployed service, only to be told that I was a silly boy and that F-35 didn't have stealth coatings.......

[a1bill]

LO
f-35 tech
DailyTech - F-35 Stealth Coatings Applied to F-22

Boeing composite for upgrades
read on f-22 thread at f-16net. It stuck because at the time, I thought it would have been LM that would have done the composite.

[LowObservable]

You're clearly claiming you know the Russians' design criteria, design trades, and design calculations.

Errrm, not exactly. But I did read the ing patent, where it said that a flaw of the F-22 design was that the LOS-blocking ducts took up too much room.

And to repeat my point - your cardinal error appears to be to assume that the T-50 has a much higher RCS than the F-22/35 based on the use of a blocker. To quote:

Those differences in RCS reduction methods result in multiple orders of magnitude differences in RCS.

There is no data at all to support this sweeping (note emphasis) claim. Fully LOS-blocked, curved-plus-blocker and even gridded inlets will all reduce RCS very nicely. It's all a question of how many bounces you get between the energy going in, hitting the compressor and bouncing out again.

[Lonewolf_50]

Returning to topic, it appears that the F-35 still isn't cancelled.

In other news, Generalissimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

[KenV]

Those differences in RCS reduction methods result in multiple orders of magnitude differences in RCS.

There is no data at all to support this sweeping (note emphasis) claim.

"No data at all?"

Data point#1: F-22/F-35 RCS are multiple orders of magnitude less than T-50:
The RCS of T-50 is .1 to 1 m2
The RCS of F-22 is .0001-.0002 m2
The RCS of F-35 is .0015 m2

Data point #2: T-50 uses different methods than F-22/F-35 to achieve its RCS. Among those differences are duct blockers vs serpentine ducts. There are other differences. That being said, the engine inlets are one of the top drivers of RCS.

[LowObservable]

Let's be quite clear.

Anyone who says "Aircraft X has an RCS of Y square meters" is by definition full of because (1) RCS is dependent on wavelength and aspect and (2) if you know what the right numbers are, you know that you should not cite them.

Such quasi-random numbers may be indicative, but that's all. And I'm sure that a number cited by a reporter for an Indian business news site, quoting an unidentified government official, is utterly reliable, or at least good enough for a fan trying to prove a point.

And Ken, you seem to be arguing in circles. You're trying to bolster one dodgy assertion (that inlet design tells you conclusively how stealthy an airplane is) with another (that RCS numbers culled from different corners of the intertubes are reliable).

[ORAC]

Looks like LM is on a roll. Doesn't auger well for the F35 programme - or in LM getting a slice of the LRS-B. Between them and Boeing wither the KC-46, it makes NG more and more of a shoo-in.......

Lawmakers Offer A Way Out of US Navy Minehunting Mess

http://www.defensenews.com/story/bre...test/71572050/

[Lonewolf_50]

LO finally did it, and now I see that more comments are following up ... something I deleted twice in the last two days rather than posting: the matter of aspect in stealth/LO assessments and figures of merit.

This may come as a surprise to the fast jet brethren and fighter jocks, but some of the original "stealth" technology put into actual military service decades before it arrived on an aircraft was on submarines. Aspect matters in that field as well when working out the ease or difficulty of a detection.

Most of that will probably be available for people in program in the technical data, and would (one hopes) not be available in a public source. What this means is that any comparisons in a public discussion are constrained by such information (I won't call it data) as is available to the public.

Points of comparison are rough, at best. Suggest we leave it at that. The "how manly is my RCS" topic looks to have been pounded into glue.

If anyone has public information on how many times a modern, and a earlier generation, radar has acquired a T-50 ... that would be of interest in a thread about the T-50. We'll only know how a T-50 and a F-35 compare when they ever meet for real. I am not sure I want that to happen any time soon, because of what that means in the larger sense.

@glad rag: a request to knock off the personal jabs if that's all you have to offer the discussion.

[a1bill]

I think subs have moved on to background imaging. Surprisingly to some, the French are well in there.

[KenV]

This may come as a surprise to the fast jet brethren and fighter jocks, but some of the original "stealth" technology put into actual military service decades before it arrived on an aircraft was on submarines. Aspect matters in that field as well when working out the ease or difficulty of a detection.

The vast majority of the sub hunting I did in my P-3 days used passive detection methods. I only used an active buoy once. Surface ships use active sonar far more.

[KenV]

LRSB procurement and lessons learned from F-35??

The Long Range Strike Bomber (LRSB) proposals are reportedly more mature than the F-35 proposals were. Perhaps the Rapid Capabilities Office (PRO) which is managing the LRSB has learned a few lessons from the F-35's sad history.

USAF Next-Gen Long-Range Bomber Prototypes 'Mature' But Haven?t Flown Yet