Forum: F-35 Lightning II

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?

F-16.net Sponsor

vegasdave901 wrote:

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?

Tread lightly my friend.

Copy that. Would be a nice little tidbit to know, but if no one answers then oh well. Like I said, someone posted the actual # for the F-35 the other day. Was like 0.002(then funny symbol thta looked like a u)

Well remember when Lockheed was told to stop talking about the 1/8" ball bearing?

Now imagine that ball bearing (smaller) and traveling through the air at MACH 1.5...

TEG

This is not a topic up for discussion.

The F-117 was never "shopped around" the Pentagon. Your question is in the 'classified realm'.

My question would be: if an answer was posted who would know correctness? There have been analogies about these numbers on the web but for the life of me (and to me) they are meaningless; and remain that way. My next question would be: Why do you want to know VeganDave911?

So the other day I wrote on this board lambasting "OPSEC Nazis" for going ballistic over public domain info. Here I will put on an entirely different hat. ARE YOU FREAKIN' CRAZY ASKING / EXPECTING AN ANSWER FOR THAT KIND OF QUESTION, VEGASDAVE??? Come on, seriously, you ought to be a hell of a lot smarter than that, man. And you claim that someone posted "actual RCS" figures for the F-35??? And you believed that person??? No way in hell anyone who would know the F-35's RCS would go around posting such info, and if they did, they are incredibly stupid and are about to spend possibly the remainder of their miserable little lives in prison. Be that as it may, even the question itself is rather dumb, since RCS is not constant, and is certainly not spherical. What angle? What band radar? What conditions? These are questions that you have no business knowing the answer to. Period. End of story.

I can't believe the paranoia here. i'll ask a question. what is more stealthy the f35 or the f22? there is no way the government is going to stop people from asking honest questions. and anyway, people who know clsassified stuff would NEVER post it here.. thats part of the process, weeding people out who would give up secrets. so ia m asking away, give me as many details as possible so we can debate them in a pubiic forum. I know there are many professionals here, but come on what is up with the ticky tack comments about 'tread lightly' and 'this is not a topic up for discussion'

sounds like censorship bordering on bullying.

Whilst it doesn't answer your question at all, if you're wondering how far 'they' think they can take stealth from a RCS point of view than have a read of this. Second page, last paragraph is quite extraordinary!

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... Bomber.xml

"How low can LO go? One paper, co-authored by a principal in DenMar Inc., the company founded by Stealth pioneer Denys Overholser, refers to the development of fasteners for a body with an RCS of -70 dB./sq. meter -- one-thousandth of the -40 dB. associated with the JSF, and one-tenth that of a mosquito. DTI queried RCS engineers who don't believe such numbers are possible; but then, when mention of a -30 dB. signature leaked out in a 1981 Northrop paper, nobody believed that either."

twistedneck wrote:

I can't believe the paranoia here. i'll ask a question. what is more stealthy the f35 or the f22? there is no way the government is going to stop people from asking honest questions. and anyway, people who know clsassified stuff would NEVER post it here.. thats part of the process, weeding people out who would give up secrets. so ia m asking away, give me as many details as possible so we can debate them in a pubiic forum. I know there are many professionals here, but come on what is up with the ticky tack comments about 'tread lightly' and 'this is not a topic up for discussion'

sounds like censorship bordering on bullying.

just because I like coke, it does not mean I have a right to know it's recipe.....

If you have knowledge about Yehudi lights, then you should not talk about Yehudi lights.

To those who have signed disclosure agreements, confirming or denying information is a violation. For everyone else, it's just idle guessing.
fisk

checksixx wrote:

The F-117 was never "shopped around" the Pentagon. Your question is in the 'classified realm'.

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' Thumb

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

As someone said above, if it's classified then either no one will really know the real answer OR they just will not answer because it is classified. I'm sure news posts here and there have come up with semi-official figures and I'm sure that's all he wants to know. What the "announced" rcs is. The answer may not be the correct one, but since it's classified, we will not really know that, will we. No harm done if someone just quotes a news story or something similar.

vegasdave901 wrote:

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?

Ah, I really hope they didn't post actual numbers , those are at the top of the food chain for security access !!!!!!!! Mr. Police man is going to knock on door if he did !!!!!!!

WHY DO YOU REALLY CARE? It's good, be happy ! It's snow hard at Pax and we're not flying!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

F-22 and F-35 rcs in layman's terms