Does the D-21 drone actually use RAM? It only looks to me it has a low RCS by its design. However, small radar cross section by the standards of the sixties also includes a MiG-21.

The MiG-21 had things going for it that weren’t going to put it into the small RCS category, even for the 1960s.

The D-21? Not sure if it was actually RAM treated or if it just used radar absorbing paint. Kelly Johnson claimed that it had the smallest RCS of anything Lockheed ever built, though.

What went on the Blackbird can be better described as RAS or Radar Absorbing Structures not material.

There was RAM on the airframe, at least on the A-12. Radar absorbent paint was applied to the operational BLACK SHIELD aircraft as well.

They even trialled an ion gun designed to create an ion cloud to absorb radar waves, and were working on a plasma stealth system when the OXCART program was cancelled in 1968. The ion gun was apparently successful and they would have fitted it to all the operational A-12s had the program continued beyond 1968.

China doesn’t care if it’s offered the PAK-FA or not, they’re developing their own F-22 class aircraft.

First off, the F-14 never got AMRAAM capability.

Secondly, there were various fleet air defense loadouts. One of them was four AIM-54s, two AIM-7s, and two AIM-9s. That was pretty common for a full-up load from a carrier.

I’m not sure they ever used the four AIM-9 option all that much.

For air to ground work the Tomcat could carry dumb bombs on the four Phoenix stations under the fuselage. Recently they have carried LGBs on the foward two stations, with two AIM-9s, one AIM-54, and one targeting pod underwing. That’d be a common A/G loadout towards the end of the Tomcat’s career.

MiG-27 had two wing glove stations, one centerline, two forward underfuselage stations, and two stub pylons aft of those where I’ve seen smaller bombs being carried.

The materials used on stealth aircraft ie the surface treatments such as RAM and paint are so rough that, whilst they may be almost undetectable in the dry air over the Nevada desert wher they are tested, in the moist skies over europe they trap so much moisture it’s unbelievable. I’ve seen a B-2 locked on to and tracked by a Rapier radar. The Rapier tracking radar is what? 30 years older technology? has to be close to it.

Depends on the aspect to the radar, the range, and the radar’s operating parameters (wavelength, frequency, etc). These aircraft are not intended to be invisible; it’s always amusing when people jump all over one of them being detected. Beyond that, I have no clue what you mean by claiming that they’re trapping moisture.

The B-2 and F-117 were designed for the European/Soviet theater, by the way, and the B-2 is based in Missouri where there is a lot of moisture around.

How well will UCAVs and legacy jets do against let model Flankers, PAK-FA, and J-XX?

A late block F-15C with AESA and JHMCS is not easy meat for a late model FLANKER. PAK-FA and J-XX are another story as they are LO platforms along the lines of the Raptor (in theory). But ask yourself, who are we going to face where we’ll have to deal with so many of those aircraft that our F-22 fleet will be oversaturated? Iran? Syria? Neither of them will be able to afford those aircraft in large numbers. Pakistan? We’re too stupid to deal with THAT problem. So, in a likely conflict, the A/A arena can be handled by the existing Raptor fleet. Easily.

Do you think goat herders is all we may face in the next 40 years?

Do you think we are going to get into it with anyone outside the Middle East? You’re becoming Koppish!

If we bumped it to like 500 and then bought more late model F-15s and F-16s maybe and all the associated ECM support and defense suppression they’d need. All that adds up to being more expensive than the current plan.

Uh, no. You can use the F-22s to take out the first day targets like air defense sites and command/control centers to make the need for huge SEAD and EW fleets irrelevant. Then it’s open season for the legacy fighters.

Not to mention you’d still need a VTOL aircraft for the marines. You going to start ANOTHER program to do that? And if so how will that be cheaper and how will it get aircraft on the ramp in the same time period?

They WANT one, they don’t NEED one. Besides, just how likely do you really think it is that they send F-35Bs into some obscure FOB close to the fighting? Take that away and you don’t need the VTOL capability.

Oh, and you’d need a LOT more Super Hornets and a lot of those will be playing tanker because the Super Hornet doesn’t have the range the F-35C will have. So you’ll need more of the G’s, more Es and Fs and more still to play tanker for the lot. Oh and you’ll also need to speed up the developement of a stealthy UCAV for the navy because they still won’t have any stealth capability without the F-35. That all sounds pretty spendy if you ask me.

They’re already looking at a stealthy UCAV. And this is a sensible discussion, there is no reason to bring the Hornet into it. In reality the USN relies heavily on USAF tankers anyway, and once again, who will we hit that requires a lot of airpower with deep strike capability?

Could the F22 be navalised?

There was an NATF plan at one time. Right now the USN might actually be better off buying a rethunk F-35C though due to the amount of time it’d take to get a naval F-22 flying. But then they’ve created a lot of their own problems by polluting their air wings with short-legged non-survivable platforms anyway, so let them deal with more Hornets.

I’m not sure I’d want to go against goat herders that might have Stingers, SA-16s, etc….in a P-47.

Put a late-model LAIRCM redesigned for a small aircraft onto it and probably unless they’ve got 18s or 24s, you can laugh at the MANPADS shooters.

BUT we only have 180 of them. Now subtract out those used for training, in maintenence, in other theaters of operation, etc. and what does that leave you? Not very many.

Yeah but you won’t need that many either. Plus you’ve still got the UCAVs and the legacy jets available as well.

The missile is not small, I have dimensions around here somewhere. Look at it hanging under the Tu-95MA, it’s a pretty gigantoid missile.

First off, the paint job appears very fresh because it is, the jet was repainted as part of the restoration process. A lot of the structure is composite as well so not looking like it was painted over metal may be accurate anyway.

Second, the museum frames shots like this of nearly every aircraft put on display, browse through the website and see for yourself. The photographer was likely on top of something to get the shot, big deal.

Thirdly, maybe the photo was cropped to get the image displayed? Nothing says that the image taken hasn’t been resized or cropped for use by the museum.