Tu22mthere is many different kind of stealth.
pakfa and korean kfx is similar half stealth type
f23 is full stealth
Wow, what’s your definition of “full stealth” and how did you get your hands on the RCs charts?
Correct, the YF23 did meet the goals for the ATF, but the F-22 was more maneuverable compared to it (YF23 program head confirms the same), while the YF23 was considered to be the stealthier of the two.
According to Jim Sandberg (testpilot) it reached mach 3 @ 35k ft
see http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xGco66RoJtc at 40:30
It’s impressive performance from a stealthy machine.
Tu22mWhy is the 1.44 included in this? It’s not a stealth fighter. Besides….
… gentlemen, this competition is OVER!!!
It’s the batmobile with wings!
But among the stealth fighters in production Pak FA is the clear winner (at least when it reaches ioc). If we allow all stealth concepts we might as well include Su47 and X36.
Tu22m“The future never turns out that futuristic”.
Why not “the future is always easier to predict in hind-sight/once it has occured”? 🙂
Graphene may very well be in some of the new RAM materials, this is what I can read about now.
In particular it results that GNPs, which are bidimensional
carbon nanostructures, constituted by multilayered graphene
nanoplatelets, are particularly suitable for the production of
low-lossy dielectrics, to be used as spacer in wide-band
Salisbury screens, with thickness not exceeding 2 mm in the
X- and Ku-bands.
The morphological characteristics of the filler and the
details of the production process of both the GNPs and the
nanocomposites are provided.The best performing screens in the Ku-band have
thicknesses around 1.5 mm, minimum reflection between -58
dB and -61 dB and bandwidth at -10 dB larger than 4.5 GHz.
For the X-band, the best performing new designed screen has
thickness of 2 mm, minimum reflection around -71 dB and
bandwidth of 2.81 GHz.
http://www.umc.edu.dz/vf/images/emc/PDFs/Papers/038_278.pdf
And this is what’s public. It really makes me curious to see what the future holds in store.
I don’t wan’t to make any certain predictions but as far as I see it we will see a lot happening the next decades.
Tu22mHow about the South African Gripens?
2 L8? I think that ship has sailed. They turned down second hand Swedish Gripens.
Tu22mWow, thanks again for an informative post.
Maybe I should’ve been clearer. The CNT RAM in the link above is the vanilla version and is commercially available for space, air, sea & land applications both civil and military. There’s a line @ the bottom that reads:
The actual developers, Ioffe Intitute RAS, have long worked on the RCS reduction of fighters- particularly of the ‘Flanker’ family. Their material (which I will not link), states at the very least (не менее) -30dB absorption (6mm) over 8-12GHz. There’s actually a chart and it averages out @ -31.5dB.
Importantly, it also states an operating temperature of -100°С to +200°С. Hence, there can be little doubt what this version is for.The thing about CNT RAM is that it’s one of those technological breakthroughs that resulted from a chance or accidental discovery such as penicillin or radioactivity (in this case Japan, 1991 for MWNTs). As such, it has revolutionary attributes that are a major departure from the RAM materials that preceded it, as already intimated by BIO.
It came too late to be applied to the F-22, but would have been a major design consideration for the F-35. This was definitely the case for the T-50, along with the ‘stealth compressor’ about which I’ll post my latest speculations sometime next week (a small thing called work gets in the way).
I just looked in the brochure, thats where I got my numbers.
If it can sustain temperatures of 200 degrees then it is pretty obvious it will be on high performing aircrafts.
There are still some materials on the horizon (like graphene based ones). We will see what it all leads to. Either way, I strongly suspect that the UCAVs of the future, as well as the fighters, will be damn hard to find using radar. Maybe one thing will be advanced post processing (with short delays) and advanced filtering.
What you need to appreciate is the lead times for such developments and the maturity of the technology to facilitate incorporation, again BIO has already covered this. F.e. recently a GKN Aerospace executive played down major graphene applications in airframes even in the medium term, despite all the jumping for joy over this ‘wondermaterial’. He said the lead times may be up to 2 decades if the example of CFRP is anything to go by or, more recently, thermoplastic composites.
Then there was the lauding of graphene as a stealth material- if the graphene layers were rolled-up…which would make them carbon nanotubes :D. First and foremost, the US DoD (and others) will be looking to governments and academic institutions worldwide to do all the R&D, then they’ll look to industrial giants such as Samsung Electronics and Intel Corp. to make the material commercially viable and attain economies of scale before it’s embraced by the aerospace & defence industry as COTS (particularly the capital tooling). A situation recently exemplified by the telecoms industry adopting GaN technology waaay before the military. The latter haven’t called the shots for over 2 decades now.
Yes, I understand it will take time from discovery through testing/validation before it actually gets into a commercial product.
When it comes to graphene it starts to look even more interesting. Every layer that is one atom thick can absorb ~2,3% of visual light. We are talking about ~0,11nm thickness here. It will be interesting to see if there will be ram materials based on similar structures, but I guess much of that research will be done quietly.
Didn’t IBM make the smallest trasistor, making it one atom thick?
Tu22mI am not debating that, what i am saying is that it is unwise to assume that the research done by Lockheed that cost millions if not billions of R&D can easily be bested by boeing who has no benefit of a long drawn out design and R&D process….just a few years after Lockheed. It would also be unwise to assume capability parity between various makers of RAM. The level of technology, sophistication and capability is often a function of how many resources you actually pour into developing a certain product. In the case of RAM and VLO, Lockheed has been working with it for decades, and since the F-22 program they have had actually operational expereince with the tech. Something that Boeing cannot claim.
How is this relevant to actual performance of RAM materials and UCAVs???
The discussion begun specifically when a comment was made that a F-18E/F designed in the 2020-2025 time frame would have a lower RCS then the F-35.
Such a claim is absurd to say the least, for if it were the case, no one would have been making stealth optimized designs, but making normal fighters (non stealth optimized) and waiting for the RAM to catch up so they can magically transform a F-16 into a F-22 🙂 …All stealth aircraft currently in development, be it the PAKFA, The J20, J-31, F-22 (operational) , F-35, UCLASS, European UAV’, etc have both SHAPING and RAM…The claim about RAM making shaping redundant is an insult to their collective intelligence. As mentioned earlier, the claim is so absurd, that even Boeing Marketing is not using it ! I am willing to wager a bet, on the fact that both the LRS-B and the PAKDA would incorporate both Stealth Shaping, and RAM to gain RCS reduction…
I have never said that a Super Hornet or similar aircraft will be stealthier than the F35. Im saying it may be possible given the development of RAM materials.
You can call it absurd to claim something might be possible. I prefer to stay open minded about it. Given the development of ram materials I don’t find it unlikely at all.
RAM is not a MAGIC DRUG that is a solution to anything and everything. Even the FiberMat is only one aspect of the F-35 RAM. To suggest that with the application of RAM you’d gain all aspect stealth, against all sensors and ranges that current VLO aircraft possess is rather weak, for no has ever done so, and claims to be able to do the same. Let their be a gripen in the international market (Marketting) that claims that it is stealthier than the F-35. Then we’ll see. I do not see this as a possibility, for those that are putting $$ Down on both RAM and VLO aircraft are developing well rounded Stealth designs, and not just RAMifying proven conventional designs. Like i said, in a few years we’d know more about the LRS-B (hopefully), which would be the next big thing in VLO A2AD design evolution (What the B-2 was in its day)…Lets see whether it overemphasizes on RAM or takes a more balanced approach to stealth like everything Stealth till now.
Look at the *******ing paper with actual data! It’s only about 150 words.
It clearly states that a thicknes ~1,4mm (+/-0,6) will offer a reduction of the RCS by a magnitude of 10-30 dB across the K-L bands. A layer closer to 6mm will offer better than -30dB in the X-band.
The current modern aircrafts are already fairly well designed. With the current RAMs they are reaching some 0,1-0,75m² in head on RCS with ram materials that are from a period where most maerials only end up lowering the signature by 5 to 10dB. If the speeds are kept at
Tu22mAs Explained by Jo, The F-35’s Fibre Mat is totally different and brand new, from the RAM used on either the B-2, or the F-22. Its capability is classified…
Era’s do not work like this :), Some programs fund some technologies early and likewise yield breakthroughs much earlier because of that. Just because Lockheed was given millions or billions to develop the F-35 in 2000-2010 time frame, and developed its capabilities with that money including the RAM, does not mean that Boeing for example will get something better if they start to receive funding now…The learning process does not significantly change in 5-8 years.. especially when Lockheed’s Learning process has involved continues design, testing and R&D from the F-22 days, as well as direct hands on expereince with the operational F-22 RAM and coatings…The DOD loves to use the DESIGN TEAM analogy…and preserving design teams is a costly challenge…Lockheed has had teams working on this FULLY FUNDED for decades…Boeing has not…That is a big difference…If Boeing has to go on a find something similar to Fibre MAT for the Super Hornet —> Duper Hornet, they have to begin from scratch, for i do not recall any boeing product that offered high end RAM as part of a stealth package…And as far as Lockheed’s work goes, Patents were filed in 2007 and 2010…I bet the continued to refine the FibreMAT in testing to be applied in future production lots, as most of the systems (in fact ALL) of the F-35 were in TESTING when the LRIP took place..As you are well aware the F-35 follows the Concurrency model…
Im aware that the fibre mat on the F35 is different from the others and i remember Spudmans comments regarding that as well.
Some of them:
Lockheed officials avoided the need to use stealthy appliqués and coatings by curing the substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for the company. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with AVIATION WEEK. This top-fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint that was used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs.
The composite skin of the F-35 actually contains this layer of fiber mat, and it can help carry structural loads in the aircraft, Burbage adds.
Moreover, the surface material smoothes out over time, slightly reducing the F-35’s original radar signature, according to the Lockheed Martin official. Only serious structural damage will disturb the F-35’s low observability, O’Bryan said, and Lockheed Martin has devised an array of field repairs that can restore full stealthiness in just a few hours.
At least to me it sounds like they are making the fiber mat as a long term solution which will be pretty time consuming and costly to replace. It also seems as though the F35 is well below the minimum criterias as well. So your first point about it being too stealthy may be possible.
It is one thing to upgrade avionics as part of the concurrency program, or maybe even replace engine parts (and that has been announced btw), but to replace something like the fibre mat which is designed to stay in place for a long time… that is a different thing. I haven’t read anything about that. My assumption is that the fiber mat currently in production is the same as the one installed on the 2006 F35s. It is possible that they changed this (we can see the difference between LRIP1 and LRIP6 based on the surface coloration), but AFAIK they use the same fiber mat. Thus it must be from 2003-2006 or about a decade old. But…
The topic is not about the F35 but rather the materials used and how it can be aplied to UCAVs.
I dont think anyone is questioning the quality and capability of the RAM produced nowadays. As Jo showed there are already public data on Russian RAM materials that on UCAVs can offer a >-30dB RCS reduction. The only problem is the heat resistance of +85 deg C meaning the top speeds would have to be closer to mach 1,5 at altitude.
Lets just say that we apply this on a modern fighter with low RCS, like the Gripen. We would get a frontal RCS <0,001sqm (down from ca 1sqm). The tradeoff is lowered top speed across the envelope. And this is with materials already produced, it’s not what could be the future it is what’s available today. The F35 officially is referred to as 0,0015sqm. Do you still think that there is no possibility that fighter jets may get upgrades in the 2020-2025 period that will put them in that region?
I know the possibility exists today, Im just waiting for someone to ask for it officially.
This also shows what level of stealth we can expect on UCAVs in the future. I say give the Russians another 10 years to work with even newer aterials and we will probably see some really interesting products reach the market.
Tu22mUNM ‘Tainut’ is essentially a carbon nanotube raw material with multiple applications for industry. It has a MWNT structure with tube diameter of 60nm and length of 10 micrometres.
In early 2008, @ the Tambov State Technical University (Тамбовского государственного технического университета), a research team undertook radar absorption tests on UNM ‘Tainut’ (УНМ “Таунит”) in the frequency range of 8.5 to 12 GHz. A monolithic polymer composite plate was prepared with an 11.2% constituent (by weight) of UNM ‘Tainut’ with surface treatments’ thickness of 0.3mm and 0.17mm which exhibited absorption of -5.2dB &-3.3dB respectively.
The findings then caught the attention of RAM specialists, the Ioffe Institute RAS (А.Ф. Иоффе РАН), who entered into a partnership with OAO ‘Ferrite Domain’ (ОАО «НИИ «Феррит-Домен») . In addition to the MWNT structure they infused exotic nano-particles such as Co & Ni. Here is the finished product:
http://rusnanonet.ru/download/documents/radar_absorbent_material.pdf
Their official data (from another document) demonstrates >-30dB absorption for 6mm over the 8-12GHz (broad X-band) range -which is an absolutely stunning achievement.
It is their direct counterpart to LM’s ‘FibreMat’ and, needless to say, will debut on the PAK-FA- more extensively and fundamentally than used on the F-35.
Also, LM’s FibreMat may have been in development for a decade, but it certainly wasn’t “developed a decade ago”. As far as timelines go- it’s brand new.
Although both US and Russian versions of this RAM have poor performance in the LF wavelengths, I’d expect the focus of future research to concentrate on materials solutions (as opposed to shaping) to address the half-resonance effect. Probably manifesting as both external laminates and internal primary structures.
Thx for the clarification.
Yes, the fiber mat is new.
[INDENT]But the design phase started a long time ago and I’m unsure if they use the latest CNTs. The usual design cycle is that you go for the latest or “next step” technology and try to incorporate it into a design. With development started over a decade ago I assume that they will use CNTs that are from that era (2000-2005 ish). But if LM incorporates more modern CNTs in the fibermat solution they by all means it is more modern than I give credit for. Another thing about it is that the Fibermat isn’t meant to be replaced. Once the airplane is covered it will use that fibermat. With the first LRIPS being produced/delivered (?) in 2006 I assume that the fibermat must be of ~2003 era (how could production start without the materials being tested?).[/INDENT]
What you show here however is that the ram of today offers -20 to -30 dbsm in RCS reduction, and more than -30dbsm if the layers are thicker (which they can be on low performing airframes like drones or subsonic aircraft).
This is whats out there today, and I agree with you that the development is remarkable. I can just imagine what performance we will see in 10 years from now.
Tu22mJust read that South Africa may look to sell its Gripen C/Ds since it cannot afford to even operate them..despite the Gripen’s low operating costs..appears that they may sacrifice all fast-jet capability with such a sale.
Sad story, they are ditching transport helicopters as well. I think the Thai AF may be very interested depending on the price.
Tu22mThey are not side-looking AESA.
The SH121 consists of 3 AESA radars. Similar in configurtion to the graphic below.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]219151[/ATTACH]
Or do you have any other information?
Tu22mHi Tu22m, your solution would be costly, and would take valuable resources away from a2a which is capital in a contested airspace situation.
Orko, the answer kind of applies to your post as well – will cost way too much, will need proper airbases, and will be prime targets for enemy a2a.
Yes, that is correct. But to have a CAS aircraft that can operate in contested airspace you don’t have any other option.
You need low signatures to make it less likely to become a target for enemy fighter jets (ie stealth approach), but it will take damage from the ground anyway so it has to be robust as well, preferrable with two engines.
The best option is ground controlled drones or artillery with “intelligent” ammunition. Cruise missiles might be another option.
CAS is the third dimension on the battlefield and it (along with bombing/attack) is the way air supremacy is manifested. If you want to cheat and use the air, without controlling it first, it will always be costly and high risk. Those are the basics.
Others suggested F15 with small AG payloads to be called in when needed. This, however, only works if you have temporary air supremacy. If you dont the fighters will be occupied defending the airspace. If you talk about CAS in general then fine, props will get the job done. In contested airspace they will be comparable to BVR target practice.
EDIT: You don’t need complete air supremacy, but you must have it in the area where CAS is to be performed. Ie local or temporary local air supremacy. Another alternative for CAS is uncontested or temporarily uncontested airspace. Otherwise it will end up like it always does. Solo flyers will be shot down really fast (there are few places to hide once you are airborne).
Tu22mAnything like this ?
No.
As Obligatory points out CAS is done once the airspace is secured.
But if CAS really is needed in contested airspace It would require stealth and a sturdy construction. I think Pak FA, but much smaller, with engines on top, larger weapon bays and reinforced cockpit would be fairly close.
The reason Pak FA would be my choice (from existing aircrafts) is because the wings have so many control surfaces meaning that if one gets blown off there is quantuple redundancy (1: forward highly maneuverable LERX that can change lift, 2: the normal control surfaces on the wings and 3: the rear control surfaces + 4: highly moveable tails and 5: 3D thrust vectoring). It also has two engines that are separated. It is possible that I would prefer to have some small canards in front as well instead of the moveable LERX for a CAS ac.
Anyways, it’s easier to design a CAS-aircraft for uncontested airspace. We already have A10 and Su25.
Tu22mFor CAS in contested airspace i would chose neither.
Twin jet, stealthy approach and a robust design would be my starting point.
Tu22mThat’s not a “kill mark”, that’s a silhouette ID aid for deck crew* and the ship that photo’s from is the Sovremenny-class destroyer Bespokoynyy, not the Kirov-class heavy missile cruiser Pyotr Velikiy that Göran Carlssons Viggen crashed next do during photo reconnaissance in 1996.
🙂
That actually sounds more likely.
Tu22mHehe no rafale here, wonder why?
Maybe they didnt have the Rafale on that particular airshow?
Do you have a video of Rafale making its fastest turn?
You dont believe in lifting bodies?
I missed that. I see that it is designed around it now.
Where are the avionics and apu located? Is it the J85?
Sign In
