Forum: F-35 Lightning II

As long as you install catalytic converters on the sheep DAGs shouldn't be a problem (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/46560). It has to be validated in a wind tunnel however, because I'm not sure the sheep can hang on in supersonic maneuvering exceeding 7G's (If the sheep blacks out and lets go, we lose our RAM, so we can't let THAT happen).

"Let me assure you that the enemy IS lurking on this board and the USG is reading every single sentence on this forum. Say whatever lies you want to prove your point, but that is reality. This is a well known hot-spot for fighter technology and as such gets a lot of attention."

NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY

COMMITTEE ROOM 4008 1530 09/02/2010

F-16.NET ANALYSIS GROUP

AGENDA

1 - "Troll" alerts
2 - Subcommittee BEAZZ reports
3 - Action item: Termination of Security Threat GF00012
4 - Investigation: Source of CONAN infinite technical wisdom

CLASSIFICATION LEVEL: MAJESTIC-12

It was according to Ben Rich (Ref: "Skunk Works"); the ball-bearing was a 'visual' for them to illustrate just how 'small' their new project looked on radar to the officials they were trying to get funding from. After a while they were told to quit using the example for the obvious reasons.

The original intent (as I read it) of the topic wasn't "numbers" of actual RCS of any aircraft, but an visual analogy of sorts like the F-117/Ball-Bearing story. IE - "Layman's Terms"

The USAF/Lockheed have also stated in public that the F-22 has 'better stealth' and/or lower RCS than the F-117 did. After all it's what 3rd Gen stealth stuff? If the USAF scolded LM about the bearing, they're not going to give any 'examples' about the Raptor or the Lightening II.

In one of the USAF's fancy TV commercials it was said the Raptor appeared "smaller than a bird" on radar. (and showed someone squinting at a radar screen) This would be a great example. Try tracking a bird on radar; which are typically to small to even track unless they're in a flock. Or you could use the ball-bearing as an example. At long ranges you can see where it would be impossible to even find. The "needle in a hay-stack" comes into play here, especially if there is any jamming occurring in the area in question.

I've also heard the analogy of the B-52 appearing 'as large as a house' on radar, and the F-16 being the size of a 'family sedan'

The F-117's biggest weakness IMO was it's top speed. Much like the U-2 in previous generations having 'stealth' and height for defense, but no speed. the replacement for both took LO to new levels and upped the speed to match. The combination of LO/Speed should make for one hard target.

I do agree though about posting numbers to this question; so I don't want to see a lot of zeros followed by meters squared or the sort.

Keep 'em flyin' (even if you can't see 'em)
TEG

Has anyone seen the actual crossection of a 117 or F-22? Not a print out - the actual radar image from the actual display? And if you did were you able to asses that cross section over time and as the aircraft aged and that coating cracked?

There is False Claims Lawsuit on record, against Lockheed, by one of it's own coatings engineers that says there are huge problems with the F-22 in this area.

Well back in my days as an air traffic controller I saw the F117 several times. I kept the MTI gain set as it was for picking up any other moving target and turned the secondary radar ( computer generated info from the aircraft transponder ) completely down and the F117 raw radar target was as large as any airliner on my scope. But as was explained to me on another forum, while operating in the CONUS the F117s were not trying to be invisible and have/had a tube or something they lowered from the bottom of it which would make it show up on any radar scope like any other plane.
But judging by the first Gulf war, it is quiet obvious that when they wanted not to be seen, they knew how to make that happen

Beazz

http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... -lock.html

.... I hadn't thought about the speed aspect. If it's as or almost as stealthy as the F-117 but moving mach+ then it's that much 'stealthier'....

I saw someon post the actual number for the rcs of the F-35 so my question should probably not be in the classified realm.
When the F-117 was being shopped around the Pentagon by Lockheed, they would give the General's a 1/8th in. steel ball bearing and say, "Here's the F-117's cross-section."
So how big would the ball bearings be for the F-22 and F-35?

Even a standard turning maneuver could increase the aircraft’s radar cross section by a factor of 100 or more.

There is False Claims Lawsuit on record, against Lockheed, by one of it's own coatings engineers that says there are huge problems with the F-22 in this area.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-d ... -lock.html