F-16.net

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 01, 2004 Posts: 53

der03301 wrote:

fretmarks wrote:

Quote:

Ok so it's not the paint is it like a radar jammer or something?

it's also not radar jamming. but i believe f-22 has that capability. radar jamming is done by emitting powerful radar signals to "drown" the radio signals of the tracking radar you wish to jam. if the f-22 will do this, it is negating its stealth capability by broadcasting its presence with those powerful jamming signals. f-22's stealth relies on RAM, RAS, computed over-all shaping and best of all flight tactics. remember that one f-117 is downed in serbia due to poor flight tactics.

Wrong.

well it is the reason being stated in public domains. sorry if i was led to believe that. and since you possibly can't discuss it here, i won't insist for you to elaborate. just a thought though, if it wasn't poor flight tactics, and i refuse to believe that it was just a lucky shot, could it be some sort of stealth compromise? if it was, then GOD bless America.

F-16.net Sponsor

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 Posts: 1152

Quote:

The SR-71 was the first modern jet version to use real stealth, in how it was shaped, the paint and the structure.
Although the SR was not a true jet but a Ram Jet. I built the combustors for the SR years ago and they were never like any other jet combustor made. They were so large you could almost stand up inside one.
An example of the attack version of the SR the A-12 is located at the Armament Museum at Eglin AFB Fl. It was designed to carry the new AIM 54 Phoenix missile, long before the Tomcat came to service.

I believe you're thinking of the YF-12. The A-12 was a reconnaissance aircraft and predecessor to the SR-71.

Also, it was the AIM-47 Falcon that was intended to be carried. It was the grandpappy of the AIM-54 which came as a result of the Navy AAM-N-11 program. The AIM-47 was originally going to be the primary weapon of the F-108, but then that program was scrapped.

edit: quote button depress failure

The YF 12A was developed in 1963, this was when the first variant of the AIM 54 was proposed and an internal weapons bay was built into the airframe. (shades of the F-22 internal bay)
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/sr-71.htm

After the attack version of the SR-71 was dropped the AIM 54 would not find an aircraft to carry it till 1970 when the Tomcat was built.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-54.htm

A trip to Eglin Armament Museum and to Pensacola NAS Museum is well worth the time and you'll find out more than you can on-line.

But I think we are digressing from the original post which talked about paint not weapons.

I had read/heard somewhere that one of the qualifications for a jet to be considered "stealth" is that it has to give off no vapor trails from the engines or the wings. The engine i don't know enough about, but as for the wings, would a jet HAVE to give off a vapor trail at some point when combining high speeds and drastic temperature and atmosphere changes? Just a thought, my knowledge regarding stealth is quite limited and I wouldn't be surprised if one of you just took my comment and "raped" the crap out of it lol.

Quote:

Also, it was the AIM-47 Falcon that was intended to be carried. It was the grandpappy of the AIM-54 which came as a result of the Navy AAM-N-11 program.

You are correct sir.

Thanks

Elite 1K Joined: May 26, 2005 Posts: 1152

ACMIguy wrote:

The YF 12A was developed in 1963, this was when the first variant of the AIM 54 was proposed and an internal weapons bay was built into the airframe. (shades of the F-22 internal bay)
http://www.fas.org/irp/program/collect/sr-71.htm

After the attack version of the SR-71 was dropped the AIM 54 would not find an aircraft to carry it till 1970 when the Tomcat was built.
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/aim-54.htm

A trip to Eglin Armament Museum and to Pensacola NAS Museum is well worth the time and you'll find out more than you can on-line.

But I think we are digressing from the original post which talked about paint not weapons.

No, it was the AIM-47. Once the F-108 mach 3 interceptor was axed, Hughes and Lockheed got together and cooked up the AIM-47B which was to have folding fins for internal carriage in an F-12 with a weapons bay.

The AIM-47 and its associated airborne radar were the foundation the AIM-54 and AWG-9 were built on. I can't find any references to the YF-12 carrying AIM-54s. Some confusion may come about because the Falcon looks a LOT like the Phoenix at first glance. (Falcon had longer front fins.) This isn't from some random internet page, this is from my embarrassing library.

Guysmiley

Thanks for the info, I found this after I got home.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... aim-47.htm

fretmarks wrote:

der03301 wrote:

fretmarks wrote:

Quote:

Ok so it's not the paint is it like a radar jammer or something?

it's also not radar jamming. but i believe f-22 has that capability. radar jamming is done by emitting powerful radar signals to "drown" the radio signals of the tracking radar you wish to jam. if the f-22 will do this, it is negating its stealth capability by broadcasting its presence with those powerful jamming signals. f-22's stealth relies on RAM, RAS, computed over-all shaping and best of all flight tactics. remember that one f-117 is downed in serbia due to poor flight tactics.

Wrong.

well it is the reason being stated in public domains. sorry if i was led to believe that. and since you possibly can't discuss it here, i won't insist for you to elaborate. just a thought though, if it wasn't poor flight tactics, and i refuse to believe that it was just a lucky shot, could it be some sort of stealth compromise? if it was, then GOD bless America.

Not a golden BB; was hit with a SAM. If you look on the net in the right place you will find the story. The incredible luck that surround that airplane finally ran out that night. 'nough said.

Enthusiast Joined: Jun 01, 2004 Posts: 53

swanee wrote:

fretmarks wrote:

der03301 wrote:

fretmarks wrote:

Quote:

Ok so it's not the paint is it like a radar jammer or something?

it's also not radar jamming. but i believe f-22 has that capability. radar jamming is done by emitting powerful radar signals to "drown" the radio signals of the tracking radar you wish to jam. if the f-22 will do this, it is negating its stealth capability by broadcasting its presence with those powerful jamming signals. f-22's stealth relies on RAM, RAS, computed over-all shaping and best of all flight tactics. remember that one f-117 is downed in serbia due to poor flight tactics.

Wrong.

well it is the reason being stated in public domains. sorry if i was led to believe that. and since you possibly can't discuss it here, i won't insist for you to elaborate. just a thought though, if it wasn't poor flight tactics, and i refuse to believe that it was just a lucky shot, could it be some sort of stealth compromise? if it was, then GOD bless America.

Not a golden BB; was hit with a SAM. If you look on the net in the right place you will find the story. The incredible luck that surround that airplane finally ran out that night. 'nough said.

i know it wasn't a golden bb, i've always believed that it was a SAM, an SA-3 that brought the nighthawk down. but then der03301 told me i was wrong and wouldn't elaborate in a public forum.

Forum Veteran Joined: Dec 14, 2006 Posts: 505

fretmarks wrote:

swanee wrote:

fretmarks wrote:

der03301 wrote:

fretmarks wrote:

Quote:

Ok so it's not the paint is it like a radar jammer or something?

it's also not radar jamming. but i believe f-22 has that capability. radar jamming is done by emitting powerful radar signals to "drown" the radio signals of the tracking radar you wish to jam. if the f-22 will do this, it is negating its stealth capability by broadcasting its presence with those powerful jamming signals. f-22's stealth relies on RAM, RAS, computed over-all shaping and best of all flight tactics. remember that one f-117 is downed in serbia due to poor flight tactics.

Wrong.

well it is the reason being stated in public domains. sorry if i was led to believe that. and since you possibly can't discuss it here, i won't insist for you to elaborate. just a thought though, if it wasn't poor flight tactics, and i refuse to believe that it was just a lucky shot, could it be some sort of stealth compromise? if it was, then GOD bless America.

Not a golden BB; was hit with a SAM. If you look on the net in the right place you will find the story. The incredible luck that surround that airplane finally ran out that night. 'nough said.

i know it wasn't a golden bb, i've always believed that it was a SAM, an SA-3 that brought the nighthawk down. but then der03301 told me i was wrong and wouldn't elaborate in a public forum.

I don't think it's anywhere near as simple as many of you seem to be making it. I don't think either side knows the full story for sure. At best I think the conclusions are theories.

I would partly agree it was a probable golden BB that first found it's mark, as the probable primary and initial cause for the F-117 getting shot down was that poor tactics were used. One of the rules of combat, is to try to be unpredictable. Unfortunately in this case the enemy was smart and figured out and predicted our attack. From what I understand the target was missed the first time it was attacked, the enemy immediately realize this, so they made a calculated guess from their past experience that if we miss a target, that we will analyze the data and figure out that we missed the target and have a follow-up attack. Apparently they noticed that on our previous failures, that on repeated attacks that we usually used the same tactics to attack. Evidently there was some witnesses that visually or could hear the path that the plane took on the first attack. So the enemy set up a Turkey shoot, in the flight path, by setting up a concentrated array of AAA and SAMs in the flight path. Stealth is hard to detect and track, however at extreme close range it becomes much more easier, so it is possible that they were able to track it. From what I understand they used a tactic that was similar to what was used in Vietnam, they rigged some SAMs so they could be fired blindly, even without a lock, so that the missile could be a dumb missile, but if the radar sufficiently illuminated the bomber it could also be guided. From what I understand they could hear and or see the plane coming, so when it got close they carpeted the flight path with AAA and SAMs.

If I remember correctly the first claims, they didn't know how they shot it down they just knew they did shoot it down. I think a AAA operator came forward and took credit for the kill. I think the media, or a private individual also predicted the attack so the attack was filmed, it was dark and you could get a hint of where the aircraft was when I couldn't possibly make it out, but there was some evidence that suggests that AAA hit the aircraft first. Some of the AAA looked like it hit something because it splashed sparks and the trajectory of the tracers changed, though that could be just a premature detonation or a tracer malfunction; however in my opinion it was a hit. Shortly after that it look like a SAM found the target at a similar altitude in what would seem to be a logical flight path. I only saw that footage about twice (it seemed as if that footage was pulled, unfortunately I didn't record it), they then started showing footage of a SAM operator claiming credit (it might have even been the same person, but the story changed, and they no longer showed the attack film)

I really don't think anyone knows for sure exactly what happened, I think everyone is speculating.

Here is my speculation/theory. I think the well-planned AAA barrage scored a lucky hit (in part to the enemies good planning and educated guess). I think the damage that the AAA cause made it more easier for them to detect and track the plane with radar and infrared, which probably allowed them to track and lock a guided SAM for the coup de grace.

The AAA and SAMs were set up so close to the flight path, that I think it is possible that they were able to track and lock, even before the apparent AAA strike. However the apparent AAA strike, would almost certainly make it much easier to track the plane.

From what I understand, the pilot probably even used the same waypoints for the attack. So the enemies guess that we would come down the same corridor, was correct. From what I understand the moon was possibly out and might have helped detect the airplane visually/optically.

I suspect that the enemy was jubilant with their kill, I suspect the Soviet advisers decided to use the situation politically and economically to try to promote future weapons sales. I think they pulled the video that seemed to show the AAA strike and the AAA officer that claimed he shot it down using AAA. I suspect they changed the story create a disinformation story to confuse our military, and to promote the sale of their Soviet radar and SAMs to their allies.

I don't have any first-hand knowledge of the situation, as it often is I suspect the people that were there don't even know for sure what happened. I base my theory and my post on this matter from sources that are public or at one time was public. Wink

If a moderator thinks this post is inappropriate, I have no problem with it being deleted.

I'm sure that the Soviets have analyzed the paint from the F-117. However I still think people should show discretion in talking about such things. I would suggest like others have suggested to refer people to other public sources on the matter. Sometimes the importance is in the details, the basics may be public, but there are probably still some details that are best left unsaid. I'm afraid some of you can say things in ways that might make things more easy to understand. Wink

Stealth paint has been around for generations, however I suspect what we have now is vastly improved over previous generations.

There is a US secrecy training film, that depicted a story of aviators that were shot down. The training film emphasized, the name rank and serial number drill. Each of the captured airmen were coerced into giving information they thought was harmless, but the enemy was able to put it back together and use it to a their advantage. For instance one of the crew the divulged, that some of the crew had to be replaced because they had head colds; which inadvertently told the enemy that the target was going to be bombed from high altitude. One of the crews let it slip what type of bombs they were carrying, which helped the enemy narrow down what kind of target they planned to attack. There were other little slips that seemed harmless to the captured true that the enemy was able to use as tidbits to narrow down the target that was going to be attacked. The crew also revealed that the mission that they were on was aborted, so the enemy knew they would likely attack the target in the next few days, and they were able to figure out the probable targets and concentrate their defense to meet the attack.

There is much wisdom in some of those old corny documentaries.

ACMIguy wrote:

Quote:

The first aircraft to use radar-absorbing, ferrite-based paint or "Iron-Ball paint" was the U-2. (1950s) The high-flying aircraft did penetrate Soviet airspace unseen for a time, but the limitations of the paint would quickly be surpassed by the technology of more powerful radars and more sensitive missiles. (Gary Powers found out the hard way

Please read my post on the Horton.

http://www.ctie.monash.edu.au/hargrave/horten.html

The paint was used on that Aircraft during WWII. Also the U2 did not have the paint applied until later, it was an all metal skin version that Powers was shot down on May 1 1960.
Check this out about Powers.

http://www.prouty.org/sabotage.html

Horten Ho-229 were never deployed or used operationally. The only powered Ho-229 crashed. There has always been speculation to the construction of the Horten. Was it plywood for stealth, or because the Germans had a shortage of aluminum to build aircraft? Shrug

Early U-2s were bare aluminum, but Power's Duce was black. Any photo of the wreckage recovered is clearly painted black on the exterior surfaces. The wreckage from the May 1st 1960 shoot-down is painted (Below or see links)
https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for- ... page12.gif
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fran ... Moscow.jpg

The first flights of the the Blackbird family:
A-12 first flight April 25th, 1962 pilot Lou Schalk tail #06924
YF-12 first flight August 7, 1963 James Eastham tail #06934
SR-71 first flight December 22, 1964 Bob Gilliland tail #61-7950

The Blackbirds were DESIGNED for a low RCS, but painted U-2s were used years before. Note: Even the original A-12s were bare metal, but then when painted, only the edges were painted before the overall black was adopted. The Ladies were being painted prior to any of the Blackbirds. Cool

As for the sabotage story... LMAO

...going to convince us that Apollo landings didn't happen either? Yeah, we wanted to quit flying over the USSR in 1960 and not even use the SR-71s being developed as a follow-on program for overflights... Rolling Eyes

Even Soviet reports claim the missiles never 'hit' the U-2, not even shrapnel. They pose the shock waves of the explosions near the aircraft caused it to break up. This was collaborated by Powers who had lost control of the aircraft at altitude due to what he believed to be a break-up. Crying or Very sad

Duces do not use special fuel additives. The JPTS is "thermally stabilized" but this is due to low ambient temps at altitude. JP-4 would 'gel' at those extreme cold temperatures like diesel fuel in the wintertime. The J75 used in U-2s was tuned a bit for it's flight envelope, but did not require exotic fuels to operate at high-altitudes. It had "tighter tolerances". There were no "hydrogen tanks" on the engines or in the airframes.

Two Cents

Why would you add hydrogen to jet fuel at hight altitude!? The oxygen up there would be more an issue than anything. The engine is running so lean at that altitude, the hydrogen would have done nothing...

Does the F-117 Nighthawk use RAM coating or paint.
Did the F-117 Nighthawk shot down in Bosnia have RAM coatings or paint.
Did it stay as part of the plane when it hit the ground.
Did any of it survive intact.

Well, parts of the plane are in a museum in belgrade.
I would be very surprised if the wreckage has not been analysed by interested parties.

Is that secret technology (since then anyway) I would not think so.
The F-22 is a different issue.

See for yourselves

http://www.pbase.com/vmarinkovic/image/33081848
http://www.pbase.com/vmarinkovic/image/33081901

Elite 3K Joined: May 10, 2004 Posts: 3098 Status: Offline

Yes, the F-117 uses RAM of several different types, at least some of which would have survived the crash. Yes, some interested parties likely got a good look and samples. But it is still secret technology - at least in the U.S. You've got to figure that while some of the stuff got into enemy hands, it's not all that much, requires lots of research to understand, and is tough to produce.

The devil is in the details with the F-117. The coatings help, but the precise shape of the aircraft and even of structures underlying the main skin have a lot to do with it as well. For example, there are reasons they won't let you near the back of the jet and won't allow pictures of the exhausts - even as the jet is being retired to secured storage on a mostly secret base in the absolute MIDDLE OF NOWHERE called Tonopah Smile

.

That engine guy

The Horton reference was to show that paint was developed very early as a means to counter radar, you are right about it being very limited in use, I think Discovery Channel said it had a few test flights. It may have been in this DVD set "German Jets and V1 & V2 Flying Bombs DVD"
Another good set would be "Stealth and Beyond DVD" from the History Channel.

One thread asked the question about defining stealth. According to dictionary.com as a noun: The act of moving, proceeding, or acting in a covert way. The quality or characteristic of being furtive or covert.
As a verb: Having or providing the ability to prevent detection by radar: a stealth bomber; stealth technology.

If you use moving or acting in a covert way stealth has been around for century's. Even the Southern iron clad fleet used light gray paint on their ship to help hide them from view in Charleston Harbor. Anyone who has entered into port at Charleston knows a light gray paint on a low slung ship would be almost impossible to see and get a range bearing or fix from beyond Ft. Sumter.

As for the Powers story, I never said I believed it, just thought it was interesting reading. I wish he had provided citations with his theory.
He did say the paint was radar absorbent in his paper but is this true?
Does anyone have an authoritative source that says the paint on the early versions of the U2 absorbed radar or was it just painted black like the old night fighters?
Was the U2 built to evade detection from enemy radar or elude SAM's by flying high? Please cite your source's...thanks....

parrothead was right on the money with his last thread about the F-117.

Now for another interesting read.
I found this list of U2 variants http://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraft ... raft_id=51

U-2A — First production model; Fitted with J57-P-37A powerplant.
• U-2B — Various improvements; Fitted with J57-P-31 engine.
• U-2C — Various improvements; Features J75-P-13 engine.
• U-2CT — Two-seat trainer.
• U-2D — Two-seat research variant
• U-2EPX — Naval surveillance version (proposed).
• U-2R "Dragon Lady" (TR-1) — Increased wingspan; elongated fuselage; features J75-P-13B engine.
• U-2RT – Two Seat Model
• U-2S — R-model fitted with General Electric F118-GE-101 engine.
• U-2ST - Redesignated two-seat models
• TU-2S - Trainer variant of U-2S
• TR-1A - Tactical Reconnaissance Variant
• TR-1B – Two-Seat Model; tactical reconnaissance variant
• ER-2 - NASA-operated U-2 aircraft (2 examples)

Elite 3K Joined: May 10, 2004 Posts: 3098 Status: Offline

ACMIguy,

I'll be hanging out with some of the Road Runners next week and as some of them actually designed, built and flew the U-2 they might have the answer about the paint Smile

. Thanks for the bit about the F-117 Wink

.

About whether or not the U-2 was designed to evade detection by enemy radar - yes on both counts.

Quote:

In March 1953, the USAF released high-flyer aircraft specifications requiring an altitude of 70,000 feet and a radius of 1,500 nautical miles carrying a camera payload of up to 700 lbs. These requirements were based on speculation that, with evolving turbojet technology, an aircraft operating at
high altitudes could safely penetrate the Iron Curtain and return with useful
information. The heights proposed would make detection extremely difficult and interception virtually impossible. Three smaller manufacturers; Bell Aircraft, Martin Aircraft and Fairchild Aircraft were solicited. Larger companies were not involved because the AF anticipated a small fleet and did not think the bigcompanies would be interested.

That was written by Garfield Thomas, Vice President of ISR Systems at Lockheed Martin. It can be found here: http://area51specialprojects.com/genesis_u-2.html

The webmaster for that site is the President of the Road Runners Internationale.

You did miss a couple of U-2 variants, though Wink

. There's also a full list at http://area51specialprojects.com/genesis_u-2.html - part of the same article by Mr. Thomas.

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

Stealthy paint?