Forum: F-22A Raptor

Problem with LO stores is that you can't put one on an LO airframe and expect the combination to remain LO. The EM interaction between them is brutal. More you add the worse it gets...exponentially. Internal stores are still the best way to go.

F-16.net Sponsor

snypa777 wrote:

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

Exactly. The US isn't going to agree to drop non-explosive devices with stealth properties anywhere.

Quote:

Problem with LO stores is that you can't put one on an LO airframe and expect the combination to remain LO. The EM interaction between them is brutal. More you add the worse it gets...exponentially. Internal stores are still the best way to go.

We might actually have the technology to do that. I wouldn't put it past today's engineers. Not like it's operational today.... or five years from now even, but I think it's possible. It's just really, really complicated. And therefore, really expensive. Nevermind that a bomb which doesn't detonate would be a huge headache, because then we would have given out our latest stealth technology.

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

Tinito,

You don't like to listen to what people say, do you? A stealthy bomb carried externally by a stealthy aircraft is NOT feasible. Stealthy bomb + stealthy aircraft does NOT equal overall stealth. Why do you think engineers are working on stealthy weapon pods designed specifically for a stealthy aircraft (like the F-22)? Because it's not feasible to make external stores stealthy. If you're interested in actual engineering, you'll have to keep in mind that something really, really complicated and expensive is not as good as something much less complicated and less expensive (but just as effective). Your initial comment about making stealthy external stores was misguided. It's okay to be wrong... seriously.

For now, I have to agree with you R_1. Right now it's not cost effective or mission efective for that matter. Maybe in the future. At least we looked at all the options, and came back with the reason.

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

Tinito_16 wrote:

For now, I have to agree with you R_1. Right now it's not cost effective or mission efective for that matter. Maybe in the future. At least we looked at all the options, and came back with the reason.

It's not an effective idea, period. I can't imagine an effort to make external stores stealthy in the 22nd century, let alone the 21st. Stealth weapons, yes. Stealth weapons carried as external stores in an effort to make the entire aircraft remain stealthy? Foolish.

Google "Have Slick"

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

djcross wrote:

Google "Have Slick"

Was there something in particular we were supposed to take note of? Have Slick sounds like something I've read about thousands of times in Dale Brown's technothriller novels. A stealthy cruise missile that carries smaller sub-munitions.

I worked on a very early (read: Lab) incarnation of that project. For the very reason I stated above, it died...yes, it was LO while it flew, but it was damn near impossible to put in on an LO aircraft and the combo remain LO. RF interactions are a bear.

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

Roscoe wrote:

I worked on a very early (read: Lab) incarnation of that project. For the very reason I stated above, it died...yes, it was LO while it flew, but it was damn near impossible to put in on an LO aircraft and the combo remain LO. RF interactions are a bear.

I think people nowadays have a tendency to forget that very low-observable aircraft still rely primarily on shaping to achieve their very low observability (VLO). Now that we have almost conventional looking stealth fighters (not just a strange looking faceted attack aircraft called "The Stealth Fighter" and a *slightly* less strange boomerang-shaped bomber called "The Stealth Bomber"), there's a tendency to forget how important overall shape is to an aircraft's stealth properties. The idea of hanging some stealthy bombs off the wings of an F-22 suddenly sounds like a good idea again. I can only surmise that the F-22's somewhat conventional look in a clean configuration gives people the impression that an even more conventional look (i.e. external weapons and weapon pylons/racks) is also possible without compromising it's VLO status.

Quite frankly, I'm impressed that stealthy external weapons pods are feasible. The concept of designing a new external "appendage" for a fighter like the F-22 without significantly compromising stealth seems like madness in and of itself. Not that I have the proper education/knowledge to even analyze a simple shape's radar cross section, but I can picture Lockheed Martin engineers (or whatever company is responsible) tearing their hair out trying to keep the F-22's RCS at the same order of magnitude with external weapons pods attached. I can't imagine what this weapons pod will look like by itself, let alone attached to the underside of an F-22's wing.

RAPTOR ONE, DJCROSS was referring to this I think;

HAVE SLICK- Development of low-observable submunitions dispenser (and possibly also standoff missile) for conformal carriage on stealth aircraft.

There is indeed another one, HAVE DASH, here is an unofficial page on it, a conformal AAM for the F-22 which had low RCS EXCEPT for the radome, don`t know if it was pursued or not. A new one on me, looks like TINTO isn`t alone after all! Laughing

http://www.designation-systems.net/dusr ... -dash.html

Now, that`s exactly what I imagined after reading ROSCOE`S post, "conformal carriage" to try to maintain the launch aircraft`s RCS. It seems the only way to carry it off. Where that would fit conformal on an F-22 boggles the mind. It would almost certainly block the weapons bays and stop you from using them, not a problem I guess as the primary mission would be to launch the stealthy weapon.
Overwing conformal attached to the fuselage? Similar problems when you consider the antennae and other gizmo`s under the Raptor`s skin. That is without even getting into launch problems, ie, try not to remove the vertical tails. I remember reading of a nasty accident with an SR-71 when it tried to launch a D21 drone, the drone clipped the tails and brought both aircraft down.

Then I got to thinking that it would be a bitch to maintain and even build a seamless mating surface betwixt weapon and aircraft to maintain that all important RCS overall. Hardly seems worth the effort when you can develop tactics to employ weapons in a different way.

Think we can safely take ROSCOE`S word for it that it would indeed be a nightmare to make work, conformal or otherwise. There is the unpractical/costly part of it. Laughing

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Stealthy weapons: missles and bombs