Forum: F-22A Raptor

This question no one seems to be asking, but why are there no stealthy missles/bombs yet? It seems like they are way overdue, especially considering the F-22A is not the first stealth aircraft. If our engineers have figured out the aerodynamics for a stealthy aircraft and made it work, why can't we do the same for munitions? It seems to me like more money should be spent on this. It would increase effective stealth payload tremendously, because you'd be able to be stealthy with both the internal and external load, and therefore require less planes for a given attack/raid. Put stealthy munitions on quasi-stealth aircraft (like the F/A-18E/F claims to be) and you've got an aircraft that can take full advantage of its (admitedly small) "stealth". So, we already have the technology to do this. Is cost the deciding factor?

F-16.net Sponsor

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

There are some stealthy cruise missiles, but cruise missiles are generally quite large and fly for a long distance. Making an aircraft stealthy with external stores is difficult unless you use specially designed stealth pods. A stealthy external weapons pod is a good idea, but not for an F/A-18E/F. It might be a good idea if the USAF wanted to turn the F-22 into a long range stealth attack aircraft. Load up a couple of stealth pods on the wings with a bunch of small diameter bombs and fill the internal bay with A-A missiles or a mix of A-A and A-G stores. Making stealthy A-A missiles or short range A-G munitions (i.e. free-fall bombs) is not practical. That's what bomb bays and stealthy external weapon pods are for.

Raptor_One wrote:

There are some stealthy cruise missiles, but cruise missiles are generally quite large and fly for a long distance. Making an aircraft stealthy with external stores is difficult unless you use specially designed stealth pods. A stealthy external weapons pod is a good idea, but not for an F/A-18E/F. It might be a good idea if the USAF wanted to turn the F-22 into a long range stealth attack aircraft. Load up a couple of stealth pods on the wings with a bunch of small diameter bombs and fill the internal bay with A-A missiles or a mix of A-A and A-G stores. Making stealthy A-A missiles or short range A-G munitions (i.e. free-fall bombs) is not practical. That's what bomb bays and stealthy external weapon pods are for.

But why isn't it practical? Think of it this way: stealth weapon pod+munition(s)=weight and drag penalty. Stealthy munitions=less weight and drag penalty. And because you wouldn't have to jetisson the pod if things get dicey, it's cheaper in the long run, too.

Another question for everyone: why not make a stealthy fuel tank? That's even more overdue than the munitions. The increase in range while still being stealthy would be tremendous if you can make the tanks stealthy AND supercruise-capable. I know it's hard. but after all we've done (F-117, B-2, F-22A) I think it's within our reach.Like Dozer said, you can't have enough fuel unless you're on fire.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

So you'd like to make a stealthy AIM-120s, AIM-9Xs, JDAMs, CBUs, etc. to go on an F/A-18E/F? The Super Hornet incorporates low observable technology, but it's not a stealth fighter/attack aircraft by any means! So why, I ask you, would you want to waste a huge amount of money attempting to make stealthy weapons that won't significantly reduce the RCS of the entire aircraft? Your questions are sort of like, "Why don't we buy 750 F-22s and 6,000 F-35s?" Yeah, why not! The cost/benefit ratio is not at all good for your stealthy external stores idea.

NO NO NO

I want the F-22, and the F-35 to take charge, not a Superbug; I'm just saying you could up the stealth payloads of those a/c by making munitions stealthy. That way, you're not subject to the size of the bomb bay, and can carry more and maybe even bigger weapons that might not fit in the bomb bay.

ALTHOUGH, now that I think of it, maybe the US doesn't want to be dropping clues (pardon the pun) as to how it does stealth.

remember that IF stealthiness is achieved by shape, ram, and paint (and without other exotic systems of sort) every shot you take you're giving a beautiful gift to your enemies..
Moreover small weapons still have a small rcs and is still difficult to track and intercept them. For bigger weapons there are still some example of stealth dna, see jsow, agm129, jsssm, etc..
As R1 said, for the external carriage , a stealthy pod is the best solution and a kind of this is scheduled for developing in next years for F22, someone opened a thread about this some time ago.

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

Tinito,

I'll repeat my question and replace F/A-18E/F with F-22A and F-35A/B/C. Here goes..

So you'd like to make stealthy AIM-120s, AIM-9Xs, JDAMs, CBUs, etc. to go on F-22As and/or F-35A/B/Cs? For A-A missiles, this is extremely impractical. Air intercept missiles are not easily tracked by radar. Even if they are detected and tracked, you'd have to have something from Buck Rogers in the 25th Century to actually shoot them out of the sky. Until there's technology out there to effectively intercept a high percentage of incoming A-A missiles, stealth considerations are unnecessary and probably detrimental to missile performance. As for A-G stores, it would be foolish to make the actual weapon itself stealthy unless it was a cruise missile or something similar (i.e. easy enough to track and shoot down). Just because the weapon is itself stealthy doesn't mean it will be stealthy when attached to a stealthy aircraft's external hardpoints. The bomb pylons and racks themselves aren't exactly stealthy and the interaction between the stealthy bomb and stealthy aircraft could result in radar energy being deflected back to the source. It's much easier to integrate a specially designed weapons pod that carries a variety of existing munitions internally than it is to redesign existing munitions so that they're somewhat stealthy when loaded on (stealthy?) external weapons pylons.

As Neno said, the weapons pod concept is already on the drawing board (or perhaps in the prototype stage by now... I have no idea). This is most certainly a better idea than redesigning a bunch of different munitions so they, themselves, are stealthy when carried externally. And again, you have to keep in mind that a stealthy weapon by itself may significantly harm the overall stealth of the mother ship if not loaded internally. Think about how one mirror could deflect a laser beam away from the source, but two carefully positioned mirrors could do exactly the opposite. This will no doubt be an issue for external weapons pods as well, but it's easier to work around the issue for a single, optimally shaped pod than it is for a multitude of differently shaped bombs and missiles. Also, the weapons pods will be re-usable. The weapons themselves won't (assuming you fire them off).

I think you guys have covered the question pretty well, but in addition here is a practical example as to why having stealthy AIM missiles isn`t required, at least for the
Raptor.
On the Red Flag exercises the Raptor was able to sneak up on, detect,track then kill opponents with AMRAAM AND `winders without being seen, the first indication the opposing force aircraft got of the Raptor presence a lot of the time was the "game over" message on the HUD!
In that scenario, a stealthy AIM isn`t necessary at ALL.
A stealthy dumb bomb or PGM would be impractical, a pod would be the way to go. Have you any idea how costly it would be to re-design the entire US bomb and missile inventory for stealth applications, that means replacing ALL stocks as well...It would take fifty years and about ten times what the F-22 program sucked up in costs.

I DO think that a limited run of stealthy JDAM may be a good idea, to defeat systems such as TOR M1 which are designed to shoot down JDAM and cruise missiles, I am not talking about a wholesale re-design of the weapon, just a good RAM coating could reduce RCS by a few dB to lower TOR M1 reaction time to nothing, considering the speed these JDAM`s travel at after it`s been "lobbed" from 65K ft at Mach many. Although having said that, even a stealthy bomb will be detected within a certain range.

Basically, a wholesale effort to make all munitions stealthy is impractical and too costly.
A selective effort to make "some" weapons stealthy has already been undertaken by the military as and where needed. One example is a stealthy torpedo which is harder to hear coming, cruise missiles which fly low and slow.

I've got a question.

If a munition, stealth or not, were to for any reason not explode, and other countries get their hands on it, they could strip and reverse engineer it right? but if you were carrying stealth pods which you had to jettison to lighten up, you are probably going to be over hostile territory and that pod, which should have some still classified stuff on it would fall into foreign hands. wont that just be like giving others stealth tech then?

How likely would it be for the 22 and 35 to actually require more munitions than that they carry in their internal bays on any given mission in the first place? How many of those sensitive strike missions would require more than a single JDAM anyway? The 22 is no dedicated mudmover in the first place.

Phreotho wrote:

ive got a question.
if a munition, stealth or not, were to for any reason not explode, and other countries get their hands on it, they could strip and reverse engineer it right? but if you were carrying stealth pods which you had to jettison to lighten up, you are probably going to be over hostile territory and that pod, which should have some still classified stuff on it would fall into foreign hands. wont that just be like giving others stealth tech then?

Now that I've thought about it, yes, it would be a bad idea to drop specifically designed stealth weapons over hostile territory, because if one doesn't explode... well, it's already happened before. In the 1950's the US gave early sidewinder missles to Taiwan so they could shoot down Chinese MiG-17's which flew higher than Taiwan's F-86. On one occassion, an AIM-9 got stuck in the airframe of a MiG-17 withouth exploding, and the pilot was able to return to base. The Russians then copied the design and made it even better. As for jetissoning the stealth pod you either could or you couldn't depending on what the planes with the pods do:

a) you have planes flying cover without stealth pods so they're flying clean and can maneuver to kill enemy a/c, while the ones flying with the pods are configured mainly for ground attack

b) the pod has a self destruct mechanism (has to be extremely reliable)

c) you make the pod as aerodynamic as possible so it doesn't affect the performance of the mothership that much.

If I'm an engineer (which I will be in four yrs), I'll try to do letter c first, I think we have the technology to make that possible, especially on powerful platforms like the F-22 and F-35. The Superbug won't even come into the picture until every hostile a/c has been shot down or destroyed on the ground

Then again, our enemies already know where to get stealth a/c parts (albeit their crashed) If they can't figure out how to do stealth with that, then I think making some "designer" stealth bombs wont be that bad. Although they'd have to be real stupid to not figure out SOMETHING from the Nighthawk wreckage.

heh. talking about self destruct
hows this then. you know how the tomahawk can be used as a submunitions dispenser then as a finale just rams into something. just thinking you could have a stealth pod which is itself a bomb. after you drop the SDBs or whatever, you could drop the pod on something. then you would have 5 bombs, giving you more drops. but of course if it doesnt explode....

Elite 1K Joined: Aug 19, 2004 - 09:19 AM Posts: 1092

Something tells me that stealth pods will be a bit too expensive to use as bombs themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't even able to be jettisoned. You'd probably send in a couple F-22s with stealth pods accompanied by several more F-22s without any external pods to provide defensive support in case of detection/interception.

Raptor_One wrote:

Something tells me that stealth pods will be a bit too expensive to use as bombs themselves. I wouldn't be surprised if they weren't even able to be jettisoned. You'd probably send in a couple F-22s with stealth pods accompanied by several more F-22s without any external pods to provide defensive support in case of detection/interception.

I don`t see the value in "dropping" stealthy pods too, I could see them staying with the launch aircraft to prevent them from falling into the wrong hands. I suppose these pods would completely envelope the weapons they house, if that was the case they would be pretty huge pieces of equipment, with doors.

We would probably see a compromise between stealth, size and practicality.
Wonder if any of those D21 drones out in the desert could be dusted down. Laughing

A stealthy Anti Radiation Missile may be a good idea - just to make it harder to track by modern SAMS after its fired.

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Stealthy weapons: missles and bombs