JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2010, 21:28
by spazsinbad
New Stealth Concept Could Affect JSF Cost May 17, 2010 By Amy Butler

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... JSF%20Cost

"FORT WORTH — As the debate rages about Joint Strike Fighter life-cycle cost, Lockheed Martin officials are raising a previously unheard point to bolster their low-price claims — a new low-observability (LO) substance called fiber mat.

Lockheed officials avoided the need to use stealthy appliqués and coatings by curing the substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for the company. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with AVIATION WEEK. This top-fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint that was used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs.

The composite skin of the F-35 actually contains this layer of fiber mat, and it can help carry structural loads in the aircraft, Burbage adds. The F-35 is about 42% composite by weight, Burbage says, compared to the F-22 at 22% and the F-16 at 2%.

Lockheed Martin declined to provide further details on fiber mat because they are classified. But the disclosure of this new substance comes at a time when Lockheed Martin officials are arguing that maintenance costs for the F-35 will be lower than anticipated by operators.

Officials at the Pentagon are required to complete their life-cycle cost estimates for the Joint Strike Fighter by the end of the month to certify that the $328-billion program can move forward despite a major cost spike. However, this has been an issue of controversy. A U.S. Naval Air Systems Command study recently stated that 65 years of sustainment for the single-engine stealthy fighter could cost about $442 billion (in Fiscal 2002 dollars) more than planned.

U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz said in an interview this week with AVIATION WEEK that he feels maintenance numbers for the conventional takeoff and landing version are “manageable,” but he did not provide a number. A sustainment cost for all three variants is needed to proceed with Nunn-McCurdy certification after the 57% cost overrun.

Amid this debate, Lockheed Martin continues to claim that sustainment costs for F-35 will actually be lower than its predecessors. But the company’s argument faces the same challenge as its assertion that the Pentagon Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation (CAPE) office’s development and production estimates are inflated. Fundamentally, company officials say, Pentagon estimates on both points rely too much on data from legacy aircraft.

Schwartz, who represents the service that will eventually operate the preponderance of the Pentagon’s F-35 fleet, appears unsympathetic to Lockheed’s complaints about the estimates. “This is a show-me situation for the government, the program office and the contractor,” he says. “Notwithstanding what they think of the estimate, that is what we budgeted to. If they want to sell more airplanes, there is a clear path ahead.”

Vaguely I recall this product being referred to as a 'plastic' finish in earlier reports when being discussed re the USN/USMC version (at sea).

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2010, 22:27
by ATFS_Crash
That seems trivial considering that the Obama regime now has the national debt at an estimated $12 trillion. Bush was a tight wad compared to Obama. Regretfully the Obama regime seems to want to cut the military, while spending and borrowing like there is no tomorrow on things that are counterproductive and snobbish.

Our military is important, we need to keep it strong. We need to stop spending so much on all this other garbage.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2010, 23:00
by stereospace
ATFS_Crash wrote:http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Wow, that's frightening. Much scarier than an Su-35.

Re: JSF Sleath Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2010, 23:15
by stereospace
spazsinbad wrote:A U.S. Naval Air Systems Command study recently stated that 65 years of sustainment for the single-engine stealthy fighter could cost about $442 billion (in Fiscal 2002 dollars) more than planned.


Who would even attempt to embark on an economic prediction that takes you out 65 years? And for what purpose? That is equivalent to buying an aircraft in in 1945 and calculating total ownership costs out to 2010!!

My first guess is this a DoD bargaining tool for the upcoming buys, "We think it's going to cost more to maintain than you claim, therefore we want a lower price." Might work.

On the other hand, if the US is still flying F-35s 65 years from now, either the world had transformed into a peaceful Nirvana or we will have become a third world country flying absurdly out of date aircraft because that's all we can afford. Based on the US debt clock above, I suspect the second choice is more likely.

Unread postPosted: 17 May 2010, 23:23
by Prinz_Eugn
ATFS_Crash wrote:That seems trivial considering that the Obama regime now has the national debt at an estimated $12 trillion. Bush was a tight wad compared to Obama. Regretfully the Obama regime seems to want to cut the military, while spending and borrowing like there is no tomorrow on things that are counterproductive and snobbish.

Our military is important, we need to keep it strong. We need to stop spending so much on all this other garbage.

http://www.usdebtclock.org/


Okay, what? This has nothing to do with that, or at least nothing more than anything else discussed on this forum. Stuff costs money.

I also tried to look up the accuracy of that website, but nothing either way showed up that I could find. Believe what you will.
--------------

On-topic:
Remember, NAVAIR is looking at the total sustainment cost for 1,600 jets, not stealth coatings for one airplane. So gas, spare parts, attrition... it adds up. That's why controversy over purchase cost is so dumb so much of the time. I'm surprised they went to 65 years though.

Who knows what metrics NAVAIR is using, either. If they're based on legacy aircraft some things are going to be obviously different. The Autonomic Logistics system alone is going to make some heads explode. It's sort of like comparing F-86 maintenance to P-51 maintenance- it's just not the same. Plus, they're Navy. What wouldn't they do to get more Super Hornets?

The fiber met concept itself seems pretty promising... I mean, even F-16's have RAM coatings (Have Glass) that have to be reapplied. Skipping a lot of the coating process and expensive coatings themselves probably will make it waaaay cheaper than the F-22. Freaking silver lined- literally.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/1555001/US-Ai ... D070112059
(Page 7)

I'm sure the F-35 will have other maintenance-specific features, we just haven't heard about them yet because they don't make for great press releases and the critics are gnawing on purchase cost and ZOMGwingloadtwratio!!!1

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2010, 02:41
by ATFS_Crash
Prinz_Eugn wrote:Okay, what? This has nothing to do with that, or at least nothing more than anything else discussed on this forum. Stuff costs money.

Costs, debt and spending are related; that's something that you and the Obama regime need to learn.

The military is fighting over crumbs, meanwhile politicians are weakening our military by neglecting funds to it; while they divert funds and massively increased funds on entitlements and they are using this strategy to divert power/control and money to the government and it is fundamentally weakening the engine of capitalism that drives our country and the military engine that protects our country. The Obama regime is living in opulence while many people in the military are living in poverty and using outdated equipment.

I'm afraid the US and much of the world has a grim economic future and we probably ought to best build fighters while we still can; our economic situation may become so bad that we may be stuck with the same aircraft for decades and development and manufacture may grind to a near standstill.

The more money we waste using taxpayer money to buy sexual predators Viagra; the less money that is available to the military. The more money we spend building bridges to know where; the less money that's available to the military. Basically the more money that the politicians waste; the less they are going to want to spend on the military.

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2010, 04:26
by Prinz_Eugn
ATFS_Crash wrote:
Prinz_Eugn wrote:Okay, what? This has nothing to do with that, or at least nothing more than anything else discussed on this forum. Stuff costs money.

Costs, debt and spending are related; that's something that you and the Obama regime need to learn.


Yeah, lumping us together really solidifies your point... What I was getting at is almost everything on this forum involves spending ("Stuff costs money," and airplanes are "stuff"), so your post was no more relevant to this thread than any other.

I know you feel strongly about your political beliefs, but could you leave them in another forum?

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2010, 05:41
by popcorn
Concerns about the durability and maintainability of stealth coatings has been a major concern so this revelation is very welcome news. We know (so far) that mechanically the F-35s being flight tested are performing surprisingly well and now this bit of good news. I wonder if they've developed a similar coating that can stand up to sea water exposure?

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2010, 06:49
by madrat
I thought by the wording they were trying to say this new technique avoids some of the costs pinpointed by the U.S. Naval Air Systems Command study.

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2010, 07:33
by sextusempiricus
Prinz_Eugn wrote:
ATFS_Crash wrote:
Prinz_Eugn wrote:Okay, what? This has nothing to do with that, or at least nothing more than anything else discussed on this forum. Stuff costs money.

Costs, debt and spending are related; that's something that you and the Obama regime need to learn.


Yeah, lumping us together really solidifies your point... What I was getting at is almost everything on this forum involves spending ("Stuff costs money," and airplanes are "stuff"), so your post was no more relevant to this thread than any other.

I know you feel strongly about your political beliefs, but could you leave them in another forum?


I second Prinz's sentiments. Could the mods please tell this ATFS fellow to pipe down with his politics on this site, purty please, with sugar on top?

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2010, 07:59
by spazsinbad
URL for this LM press release from mid 2009 (I think):

http://www.f-35.mil/news/documents/2008 ... ARRIER.rtf

"The F-35 achieves its Very Low Observable stealth performance through its fundamental design, its external shape and its manufacturing processes, which control tolerances to less than half the diameter of a human hair. Special coatings are added to further reduce radar signature.

The package is designed to remain stealthy in severe combat conditions, and tests have validated that capability. After obtaining baseline radar cross section (RCS) measurements from a highly detailed, full-scale Signature Measurement Aircraft (SigMA), a team of Lockheed Martin and Northrop Grumman engineers intentionally inflicted extensive damage – more than three dozen significant defects – on the model. The damage represented the cumulative effect of more than 600 flight hours of military aircraft operations. RCS measurements taken after the damage showed that the stealthy signature remained intact.

“Even operating in harsh carrier-deck conditions, the F-35C will require no special care or feeding. In fact, its stealth adds very little to the day-to-day maintenance equation,” O’Bryan said. “We’ve come a long way from the early stealth airplanes, which needed hours or even days of attention and repair after every flight. The F-35 not only avoids that intensive level of upkeep, it will require significantly less maintenance than the nonstealth fighters it is designed to replace.”
__________________

Some good stuff about stealth making processes here: http://openpdf.com/viewer?url=http://ww ... 59.ch8.pdf

http://evangelidis.gr/embry/F35LO-ShortReport-HTML.htm

"Materials
On the F-35 several special materials are used, including Radar Absorbing Materials (RAM), Radar Absorbing Structure and Infrared (IR) Topcoat. Unlike the F-117, which was totally coated with 2,000 pounds of RAM, these materials are more selectively used on the F-35. Lockheed Martin developed paint-type RAM which is applied around the edges of doors and control surfaces. RAS is used on the body, wing and tail edges. For the application of this paint robots will be used, like the CASPER (Computer Aided Spray Paint Expelling Robot) system used for F-22 and the Have Glass II program used for painting 1,700 F-16s with RAM. Robots are essential because they can reach confined areas, as the inlet ducts, and can work without stepping on the aircraft.

These materials comprise ferromagnetic particles, embedded in a high-dielectric-constant polymer base. The dielectric material slows down the wave and the ferromagnetic particles absorb the energy. These coatings are also designed in a way that the small reflection from the front face of the absorber is cancelled by a residual reflection from the structure beneath it. This is not an easy procedure, and it makes RAM design much more tricky than most people believe.

F-35’s entire airframe is also painted with a camouflage topcoat that suppresses IR."
______________________________

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/in-depth/t ... 33.article

"The secret is a laser alignment technique controlled directly from digital data held on computers networked between the UK and US. Reference points on the factory jigs are controlled by a system of tiny mirrors that the 'intelligent laser head' tracks to ensure every part is identical to sub-millimetre levels. Though the exact accuracy is classified, the improvement is understood to be 'an order of magnitude' greater than that on Eurofighter.

Large 'knitting machines' put together the layers of composite materials, carbon fibres and resin into complex 3D shapes (for example air inlets) that otherwise would have to be hand formed. The digital manufacturing suite is completed by a drilling machine that again is integrated with design data, saving days of manual work. These automated processes will speed up manufacturing while needing perhaps 10-20 per cent fewer operators on the shop floor.

Cronshaw estimates that the £40m facility being built at Samlesbury (commissioning is scheduled for late-2003) will be able to make 20 titanium, aluminium and composite rear fuselages per month compared to around four for older fighters. These will be shipped to the US and stuck straight on to the aircraft bodies.

As well as saving costs, precision production has numerous operational advantages. For example, low-observable aircraft like the B-2 stealth bomber have historically been vulnerable to the elements, so it requires constant 'fixing and blending' of the surface to keep its low-observability characteristics. A tiny blemish could make the B-2 almost as obvious to radar as any other aircraft.

Not only is F-35 designed to operate 'without the bubble wrap', says Evans, but the precision manufacturing technique means that when panels are damaged they can be whipped off and replaced exactly with no need for time-consuming taping or welding. 'The accuracies built into F-35 from the start are a major plus point,' adds Cronshaw."
___________________________

Good PDF story about making 'stealth' aircraft: http://www.navy.mi.th/nrdo/jane/dev_w/p ... July48.pdf (1Mb)
&
http://deepbluehorizon.blogspot.com/201 ... -game.html

"FORT WORTH — As the debate rages about Joint Strike Fighter life-cycle cost, Lockheed Martin officials are raising a previously unheard point to bolster their low-price claims — a new low-observability (LO) substance called fiber mat.

Lockheed officials avoided the need to use stealthy appliqués and coatings by curing the substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for the company. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with AVIATION WEEK. This top-fiber mat surface takes the place of metallic paint that was used on earlier stealthy aircraft designs.

The composite skin of the F-35 actually contains this layer of fiber mat, and it can help carry structural loads in the aircraft, Burbage adds. The F-35 is about 42% composite by weight, Burbage says, compared to the F-22 at 22% and the F-16 at 2%.

Lockheed Martin declined to provide further details on fiber mat because they are classified. But the disclosure of this new substance comes at a time when Lockheed Martin officials are arguing that maintenance costs for the F-35 will be lower than anticipated by operators."

GOOD FOR THE PIC: (repeated bleow) http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_MpnA9si4GMs/S ... static.jpg

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2010, 08:14
by Corsair1963
Impressive..... :notworthy:

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2010, 09:32
by spazsinbad

Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2010, 11:31
by Pilotasso
spazsinbad wrote:New Stealth Concept Could Affect JSF Cost May 17, 2010 By Amy Butler

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/ ... JSF%20Cost

"Lockheed officials avoided the need to use stealthy appliqués and coatings by curing the substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for the company. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. "You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with AVIATION WEEK.


:shock:

So new LO technology consists in banging the aircraft to reduce RCS????
Thats new and innovating!
:lmao:

Bill Sweetman please return your forgiven! :D

RE: Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2010, 12:29
by popcorn
I don't know about the rest of you but this is the first I've read about fiber mat.. apparently LMA felt that disclosing this information would help it justify its position in a lower maintenance burden for the jet. I find it funny that the Pentagon's own bean counters didn't seem to be aware of this and factor it into their maintenance computations w/c was what LMA wanted to remedy by its disclosure.

Its a marked advance over the stealth coatings for previous aircraft w/c required finicky care and were manhour intensive to care for. Presumably fiber mat has been around for a decade or more since the program began and I think its safe to assume that the next gen of stealthy materials are probably going to be even more robust and effective and are probably well along in their development cycle.. if they aren't already available now.

RE: Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2010, 14:06
by neiyold
'The accuracies built into F-35 from the start are a major plus point,' adds Cronshaw."

Cannot praise this statement enough! Following the F35 even a little and one becomes aware of the incredibly pervasive DFMM going into this product. Fascinating.

Good thread, thanks.

Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2010, 16:46
by Prinz_Eugn
Pilotasso wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:
"Lockheed officials avoided the need to use stealthy appliqués and coatings by curing the substance into the composite skin of the aircraft, according to Tom Burbage, executive vice president of F-35 program integration for the company. It “makes this airplane extremely rugged. "You literally have to damage the airplane to reduce the signature,” he said in an interview with AVIATION WEEK.


:shock:

So new LO technology consists in banging the aircraft to reduce RCS????
Thats new and innovating!
:lmao:

Bill Sweetman please return your forgiven! :D


Haha! Didn't even catch that.

"I think you know what I meant..."

RE: Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2010, 20:30
by cfg
Good catch. To degrade, of course :wink:

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2010, 04:56
by munny
spazsinbad wrote:These coatings are also designed in a way that the small reflection from the front face of the absorber is cancelled by a residual reflection from the structure beneath it. This is not an easy procedure, and it makes RAM design much more tricky than most people believe.


That was fascinating information….thanks.

The mesh holds up half of the waves for long enough so that when they escape, their phases are the opposite of the other half which bounce off the face, thus they cancel each other out.

Is the length of time it holds them for static or is it adjustable depending on the frequency of the incoming waves detected by receivers on the aircraft?

If it does indeed alter the timing, how does it handle multiple frequencies hitting it at the same time? Its been said that the PAK FA will have X-band radars in the nose and L-band on the wing lead edges, I wonder how that changes things.

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2010, 05:40
by Beazz
munny wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:These coatings are also designed in a way that the small reflection from the front face of the absorber is cancelled by a residual reflection from the structure beneath it. This is not an easy procedure, and it makes RAM design much more tricky than most people believe.


That was fascinating information….thanks.

The mesh holds up half of the waves for long enough so that when they escape, their phases are the opposite of the other half which bounce off the face, thus they cancel each other out.

Is the length of time it holds them for static or is it adjustable depending on the frequency of the incoming waves detected by receivers on the aircraft?

If it does indeed alter the timing, how does it handle multiple frequencies hitting it at the same time? Its been said that the PAK FA will have X-band radars in the nose and L-band on the wing lead edges, I wonder how that changes things.


LOL>. Not that I'd know those answers, but don't seem like anyone that did know would be likely to be posting the *hows* of this on here eh? I'm sure our Chinese and Russian pals would love to know as well.

Beazz

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2010, 05:52
by munny
Well LM was happy to divulge how the basics of it work in the first place. I'm guessing that this system is used by everyone but the true secret is how to build machines which can cut the mesh so accurately.
Was wondering if there were any other tidbits of public information floating around. I know Spaz is the absolute master of providing sources of information.

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2010, 06:31
by spazsinbad
Spaz is no spy. Google it. Or as I prefer 'Gargle' it. With patience you will be amazed what you might find.

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2010, 07:50
by spazsinbad
munny, (having a few minutes) here are some clues via WickedPedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealth_technology

"Radar absorbent material
Radar absorbent material (RAM), often as paints, are used especially on the edges of metal surfaces. While the material and thickness of RAM coatings is classified, the material seeks to absorb radiated energy from a ground or air based radar station into the coating and convert it to heat rather than reflect it back."
______________________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radar_absorbent_material

"Radar absorbent material, or RAM, is a class of materials used in stealth technology to disguise a vehicle or structure from radar detection. A material's absorbency at a given frequency of radar wave depends upon its composition. RAM cannot perfectly absorb radar at any frequency, but any given composition does have greater absorbancy at some frequencies than others; there is no one RAM that is suited to absorption of all radar frequencies. A common misunderstanding is that RAM makes an object invisible to radar. A radar absorbent material can significantly reduce an object's radar cross section in specific radar frequencies, but it does not result in "invisibility" on any frequency."
&
"Foam absorber
Foam absorber is used as lining of anechoic chambers for electromagnetic radiation measurements[citation needed]. This material typically consists of a fireproofed urethane foam loaded with carbon black, and cut into long pyramids. The length from base to tip of the pyramid structure is chosen based on the lowest expected frequency and the amount of absorption required. For low frequency damping, this distance is often 24 inches, while high frequency panels are as short as 3-4 inches. Panels of RAM are installed with the tips pointing inward to the chamber. Pyramidal RAM attenuates signal by two effects: scattering and absorption. Scattering can occur both coherently, when reflected waves are in-phase but directed away from the receiver, or incoherently where waves are picked up by the receiver but are out of phase and thus have lower signal strength. This incoherent scattering also occurs within the foam structure, with the suspended carbon particles promoting destructive interference. Internal scattering can result in as much as 10dB of attenuation. Meanwhile, the pyramid shapes are cut at angles that maximize the number of bounces a wave makes within the structure. With each bounce, the wave loses energy to the foam material and thus exits with lower signal strength.[4] Other foam absorbers are available in flat sheets, using an increasing gradient of carbon loadings in different layers."

Unread postPosted: 19 May 2010, 08:01
by spazsinbad
New stealth tricks in store for F-35? By Stephen Trimble on July 16, 2009

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

"Aerospace blogger and journalist Dave Majumdar, a contributor to The DEW Line, has interviewed Lockheed Martin and F-35 program officials in advance of roll-out of CF-1, the first prototype of the naval variant.

Debuting on the July 28 is the US Navy's first all-aspect stealth aircraft, the F-35C.

Designed to meet the stringent requirements for a "very long range, very low observable, first day of war strike aircraft", the "F-35 has all-aspect stealth", said Steve Weatherspoon, Lockheed Martin's Deputy Test Verification officer for the F-35 Integrated Test Force.

The naval variant "was designed from the beginning to operate in the maritime environment", said Steve O'Bryan, a Lockheed Martin Vice President for Business Development. According to O'Bryan, the aircraft's radar absorbent coatings were designed to be able to withstand daily exposure to the high temperatures, salt water, and chemicals encountered onboard an aircraft carrier. O'Bryan adds that the new coatings will be "resilient" enough that the aircraft's radar cross section will not suffer when it is scratched, chipped, or cracked "during day-to day operations in a naval environment". This should greatly reduce the maintenance burden for the Navy, he said.

Craig Williams, head of Business Development for the F-35C at Lockheed Martin, explains that the new coatings are "less ornate" than previous incarnations of radar absorbent materials (RAM). The new compounds dispense with the "silver paint" primers found in previous designs, "completely eliminating" the hazardous and difficult substance.

In order to validate the performance of the new low-observable (LO) materials, Williams explained that "coupons" of the compound are being tested "on the beach" and "at sea" for "days, weeks, months, and years at a time". The new coatings have also been tested in a specially designed chamber where they have been exposed to "salt fog" and gases such as sulfur dioxide, which would be encountered under operational conditions.

To ensure that the LO seal of the aircraft is not routinely broken, Williams explains that "natural openings" are utilized for maintenance as often as possible. These "natural openings" include the wheel wells and the weapons bays among others. Where access is not possible through these openings, access panels are provided. O'Bryan points out the baseline requirements for the JSF program mandate that the jet be "twice as reliable as a late model F-16 or F/A-18", which should substantially reduce the need to break open the LO seals under operation conditions.

Furthermore, "everything faced during F-22 operations has been improved upon", Williams said, reflecting upon the "lessons learned" from that program. Recently, he added that he had attended a meeting where JSF program officials met with their F-22 counterparts. According to Williams, the verdict from the F-22 officials was that "every possible lesson learned" from the Raptor had been incorporated into the Lightning II."

Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2020, 15:54
by garrya
F-35 skin
CC278503-3CEA-476D-BD13-478E6CBB1522.jpeg

Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 19 Nov 2020, 19:03
by marauder2048
Can you post the entire presentation?

Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2020, 01:24
by charlielima223
Wasn't the F-22 suppossed to get F-35 coatings on certain parts of the jet to reduce maintenance costs?

Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2020, 13:33
by hornetfinn
Very interesting. It's easy to see the evolution of the stealth coating in these pictures. F-22 coating seems to be rather thick and is definitely much more difficult to work with. It would be interesting to see how F-22 coating looks like now...

Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2020, 14:59
by spazsinbad
USING this URL one may find info on the topic "Some F-35 coatings applied to F-22" or similar:

search.php?st=0&sk=t&sd=d&sr=posts&keywords=Majumdar+Raptor+Coatings&fid%5B%5D=65&ch=-1

This one is perhaps more detailed: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15391&p=194449&hilit=Majumdar+Raptor+Coatings#p194449
_________________________________

Most recent info: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=15391&p=364737&hilit=Diamond+recoat#p364737

Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2020, 15:56
by quicksilver
Although stated generically, what doesn’t get enough emphasis are the differences in degree of difficulty between the older technology LO and the newer. This translates to ‘time and effort’ necessary to keep jets LO mission ready. Service maintainers with the most previous experience in LO (USAF) generally see F-35 as a revelation; those with less or none (eg, the Navy and Marine Corps) see it as ‘another maintenance requirement’ that they didn’t have before. Credible people I speak to say the quantifiable difference between the old stuff and the new is an an order of magnitude less.

Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2020, 21:58
by spazsinbad
A recent example of testament to the F-35 'stealth coating' is of course on another thread so go there: [other threads also]

viewtopic.php?f=60&t=53014&p=428988&hilit=Waldron+rock#p428988
"...the coating itself is “rock solid”. “It’s a generational jump from previous stealth aircraft,” he says. Lockheed’s F-35 factory in Fort Worth, Texas, has a doormat made from the jet’s low-observable skin. “Every year they pick it up and check it, and it still holds that LO quality,” Sheehy says. Steve Over, director international business, adds: “It’s seen tens and tens of thousands of steps. People jump on it, stomp on it... it’s just one thing we use to prove the durability of the coating system.”

More importantly, they contend, the coating is easily applied in the field and requires no environmental control facility as with previous versions of stealth aircraft. Lockheed says the interval between maintenance events for the F-35’s low-observable coating is now 19h – better than the targeted 9h...." https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... id-461721/

___________________________________________________________________

Quote POSTED: viewtopic.php?f=60&t=27639&p=296915&hilit=Materials+Technology+Building+Tactical+Century#p296915
"....For those services that operate airplanes in more benign environments than an aircraft carrier, they’re getting the benefit of a coating system that’s designed for an aircraft carrier. Everybody gets the same thing...."
A wordy worthy overview: http://www.sldinfo.com/building-an-8000 ... echnology/

Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2020, 23:53
by energo
garrya wrote:F-35 skin


Excellent find!

Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2020, 17:30
by michaelemouse
garrya wrote:F-35 skin
CC278503-3CEA-476D-BD13-478E6CBB1522.jpeg


Could someone explain the differences in composition between the F-22 and the F-35 coatings? Why two primers on the F-22? What does the conductive coating do? What is the waterborne primer? The fibermat?

Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2020, 19:56
by spazsinbad
michaelemouse wrote:
garrya wrote:F-35 skin
The attachment CC278503-3CEA-476D-BD13-478E6CBB1522.jpeg is no longer available

Could someone explain the differences in composition between the F-22 and the F-35 coatings? Why two primers on the F-22? What does the conductive coating do? What is the waterborne primer? The fibermat?

A 36 page PDF (reprinted hence PRN - URLs not live) about some aspects of how F-35 STEALTH achieved is attached below.

Using the SEARCH function one may find 2 pages of references to 'fibermat' (which is likely also 'fiber mat'/'fibre mat').

ONE example: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=19506&p=229846&hilit=fibermat#p229846

Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2020, 20:33
by Gums
Salute!

I want some of that stuff for my 1964 GTO !!!!!!

What's the use of 400 HP if I can't let the sucker rip?

Gums wishes.....

Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2020, 22:03
by steve2267
Gums wrote:Salute!

I want some of that stuff for my 1964 GTO !!!!!!

What's the use of 400 HP if I can't let the sucker rip?

Gums wishes.....


Gums... you just wanna tear by that Florida State Trooper whilst his radar gun reads 0 mph... (If you somehow add the APG-81 to the hood, then you could get his gun to read 55 mph, or whatever you wish.)

Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2020, 23:07
by magitsu
The slide comes from this presentation:
https://slideplayer.com/slide/12976539/

Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2020, 00:13
by spazsinbad
Thanks. What a hassle PPTs are these days for someone without MS Office or a PPT Viewer. I'll see if I can make a PDF.

Official MS PPT Viewer said file was corrupt so from screengrabs a 10 page PDF made with 'question' blank page deleted.

Low Observable Maintenance on 5th Generation Aircraft by Col Jon Eberlan

Re: JSF Stealth Coat Cost (for 65 YEARS?!) Phew.....

Unread postPosted: 24 Nov 2020, 12:43
by hornetfinn
michaelemouse wrote:
garrya wrote:F-35 skin
CC278503-3CEA-476D-BD13-478E6CBB1522.jpeg


Could someone explain the differences in composition between the F-22 and the F-35 coatings? Why two primers on the F-22? What does the conductive coating do? What is the waterborne primer? The fibermat?


Just found this which explains F-22 coating:
https://www.flightglobal.com/stealth-re ... 82.article

A recent lawsuit against Lockheed brought by a former F-22 stealth engineer provides a detailed glimpse into this specific application. Lockheed denies the claims by the former employee, Darrol Olsen, that the company knowingly supplied defective stealth coatings to the US Air Force during the development phase of the programme. But court records show that Lockheed's goal is to make the F-22 appear as the size of a "bumblebee" to a radar detector.

The F-22's contoured shape achieves the majority of the desired radar cross-section objective, court documents say. In addition, the F-22 also has numerous layers of coatings applied to the aircraft skin.

"The initial requirements were for three layers of coating to be stacked together in the following order," the court documents show. "The first coating is a primer designed to smooth and seal the surface of the skin and promote adhesion of the conductive coating.

"The second is a conductive coating consisting of silver flakes mixed with polyurethane materials and intended to conduct, dissipate and reflect the radar waves away. The third is the topcoat, which has other metallic materials and infrared properties to reduce heat and thus radar detection. In addition, other coatings such as [radar absorbent materials], gap fillers, and adhesives were applied on various specific areas of the aircraft."


There is no mentioning of 2nd Primer here, but that might be used to improve adhesion between Top Coat and Conductive Coating for example.

I think F-22 and F-35 coatings are basically similar, but technology has matured a lot. Fibermat is a big improvement as it's structural and very durable. It's basically combination of Conductive Coating and Fairing Material in F-22 and also saves a layer of primer. It also seems that the materials used are much more efficient if those pictures are in scale. Basically F-35 skin is a lot thinner and much more robust than original F-22 skin.