New coating & look for F-35s coming later this year

[steve2267]

I'm not sure why, but the Russians seem to have better/more diverse paint schemes than their US counterparts. Take for example these camo patterns on the SU-57. I find them very unique, even if I'm not sure they're effective.

So first you say "seem to have better..." then you add "not sure they're effective."

Which is it?

[mixelflick]

I'm not sure why, but the Russians seem to have better/more diverse paint schemes than their US counterparts. Take for example these camo patterns on the SU-57. I find them very unique, even if I'm not sure they're effective.

So first you say "seem to have better..." then you add "not sure they're effective."

Which is it?

Both.

To my eye, they seem to be better/more effective. But I'm just a civilian/casual observer, so unsure as to the actual effectivness of said camo schemes...

[steve2267]

I'm not sure why, but the Russians seem to have better/more diverse paint schemes than their US counterparts. Take for example these camo patterns on the SU-57. I find them very unique, even if I'm not sure they're effective.

So first you say "seem to have better..." then you add "not sure they're effective."

Which is it?

Both.

To my eye, they seem to be better/more effective. But I'm just a civilian/casual observer, so unsure as to the actual effectivness of said camo schemes...

Oh, ok. It read to me as if you were saying "they are better" and "they are not effective".

[ricnunes]

I'm not sure why, but the Russians seem to have better/more diverse paint schemes than their US counterparts. Take for example these camo patterns on the SU-57. I find them very unique, even if I'm not sure they're effective.

So first you say "seem to have better..." then you add "not sure they're effective."

Which is it?

Both.

To my eye, they seem to be better/more effective.

I'm curious about why do you think that the Su-57 camo schemes are or should be more effective than for example the camo scheme of the F-35 (or other US aircraft like the F-22)?
I'm asking this because by looking at the pictures that you previously shared it seems to me that the Su-57 camo schemes offer a much bigger contrast against the background (or most backgrounds) this when compared to for example the F-35 camo/paint schemes and as such being "less effective" for the intended purpose (which is to provide "camouflage").

IMO, I can only see one kind of background where those Su-57 camo schemes could offer some advantages which would over Arctic regions (and therefore a minority among Earth's surfaces/terrains).

[squirrelshoes]

Given SU-57s will mainly be performing in air shows I'm sure the fancier camo is suitable.

[XanderCrews]

Given SU-57s will mainly be performing in air shows I'm sure the fancier camo is suitable.

yup.

isnt it odd, that the F-35, F-22, and SH all have big orders and everyone said especially F-35 that they're built for war, but Russian aircraft are built to do good at airshows, look pretty and try attract attention and orders? isn't that weird?

[mixelflick]

I'm curious about why do you think that the Su-57 camo schemes are or should be more effective than for example the camo scheme of the F-35 (or other US aircraft like the F-22)?
I'm asking this because by looking at the pictures that you previously shared it seems to me that the Su-57 camo schemes offer a much bigger contrast against the background (or most backgrounds) this when compared to for example the F-35 camo/paint schemes and as such being "less effective" for the intended purpose (which is to provide "camouflage").

IMO, I can only see one kind of background where those Su-57 camo schemes could offer some advantages which would over Arctic regions (and therefore a minority among Earth's surfaces/terrains).[/quote]

In several photos I've seen, they appear to blend into the background better. In a few others, not so much so I suppose it's where you're flying...

As to the "built for war" point that was brought up... a lot more goes into it. I think civilian and even some military leadership are always going to be impressed by airshow stunts. One would hope any civilian leader would leave the final recommendation to his pilots, but that's probably not always the case.

I think the world looks at US combat aircraft as the Rolls Royce of what they can buy. We certainly aren't the lowest cost option though (in most cases), that's for sure. That, coupled with real world results in various conflicts probably drives most of the buys. Also, Russia doesn't seem to have 1.) as many relationships and 2.) as tightly knit relationships with various countries the US does.

They will emphasize a cheaper pricetag, but the old adage usually rings true: You get what you pay for..

[ricnunes]

In several photos I've seen, they appear to blend into the background better. In a few others, not so much so I suppose it's where you're flying...

Well in most of the photos/paint schemes that I've seen I don't see the aircraft (Su-57) blending better against the background being it a ground or air backgrounds. There's could be exceptions (like the Arctic that I previously mentioned) but then again those would be exceptions and not the rule.
But then again, I guess that this could be one of those things like the "beauty is in the eye of the beholder".

I think the world looks at US combat aircraft as the Rolls Royce of what they can buy. We certainly aren't the lowest cost option though (in most cases), that's for sure. That, coupled with real world results in various conflicts probably drives most of the buys. Also, Russia doesn't seem to have 1.) as many relationships and 2.) as tightly knit relationships with various countries the US does.

They will emphasize a cheaper pricetag, but the old adage usually rings true: You get what you pay for..

Actually I disagree a bit with that assessment above (US combat aircraft being the "Rolls Royce" of combat aircraft).
IMO, combat aircraft must first be looked into a Western and Eastern perspective, this even before looking at the aircraft being from X or Y country individually.

So if you want to buy Western, this due to several reasons such as the following:
1- Due to geopolitical alliances/politics.
2- And, due to Western Aircraft almost always having more advanced avionics and sensors.

Then you'll have 2 "sub-options":
1- Buy from the USA
2- Or, buy European

From the 2 (two) sub-options above the cheaper option is usually (not always granted but usually nonetheless) buying from the USA.
So buying from the USA is in this perspective and again IMO, hardly a "Rolls Royce choice".

Of course that buying Russian is usually (I would even say: but perhaps not always) cheaper than buying Western, including from the USA and of course from any European country. But then again, this "cheaper option" comes with the following costs:
1- These combat aircraft usually (if not almost always) come with inferior avionics and sensors.
2- Usually requires a more complex and expensive maintenance.
3- It puts somehow the purchasing country farther away in political terms from the US and West.

[mixelflick]

Yes, I would agree with most of that. I guess when I said "rolls royce" I was thinking more along the lines of avionics and well, craftsmanship. The avionics are pretty self explanatory, we seem to be a generaton ahead of the Russian birds (I didn't consider European aircraft, which was a mistake). On the craftsmanship, western aircraft seem to be more uniformally built. Meaning once you get past the first 3rd of Russian aircraft (going nose to tail), the last 2/3rds show sloppy welding etc.. lOn Western aircraft, the rivets etc. are consistent, nose to tail.

The F-35 has the smoothest look, it's really beautiful (especially from the bottom, IMO). Sets it apart as something new something different...

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

The F-35 has the smoothest look, it's really beautiful (especially from the bottom, IMO). Sets it apart as something new something different...

Shots of them flying belly up look like the flow of water over rocks. Beautifully shrink wrapped curves around the inlets and munitions.

[ricnunes]

Yes, I would agree with most of that. I guess when I said "rolls royce" I was thinking more along the lines of avionics and well, craftsmanship. The avionics are pretty self explanatory, we seem to be a generaton ahead of the Russian birds (I didn't consider European aircraft, which was a mistake). On the craftsmanship, western aircraft seem to be more uniformally built. Meaning once you get past the first 3rd of Russian aircraft (going nose to tail), the last 2/3rds show sloppy welding etc.. lOn Western aircraft, the rivets etc. are consistent, nose to tail.

The F-35 has the smoothest look, it's really beautiful (especially from the bottom, IMO). Sets it apart as something new something different...

Oh, I see.
With "Rolls Royce" I was thinking more into the lines of being a 'luxury' (costly/very expensive/for the very rich only) and not about craftsmanship. As such I definitely misunderstood your post, sorry.

So, yes in that regard I certainly agree with you.

[doge]

Artist.
https://www.hill.af.mil/News/Article-Di ... h-stealth/

Hand-Painting and High-Tech Stealth
By Airman 1st Class Renan Arredondo, 2D Audiovisual Squadron / Published January 03, 2022
HILL AIR FORCE BASE – How do you make a 51-foot-long, 35-foot-wide fighter jet undetectable? There's no black magic that exists to make the F-35A Lightning II invisible, but it does have masking features which make it challenging to detect, track or target by radar with missiles or by an enemy aircraft. The cloaks of these aircraft are called low-observable technology and are managed by highly trained airmen.
“You can't just read the steps in the manual,” said Master Sgt. John Knowles, 388th Maintenance Squadron section chief. “There are requirements for who can do it and inspect it … We take doing it correctly very seriously.”

With stealth designed-in from day one, the F-35 has an unmatched ability to evade enemy detection and enter contested airspace. The F-35’s aligned edges, reduced engine signature, internal carriage of weapons and fuel and embedded sensors all contribute to its unique stealth performance.
General Charles Q. Brown said, “The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is the cornerstone of our future fighter force and air superiority. Achieving air superiority in a future fight is strongly dependent on full-spectrum dominance. The F-35 and its 5th Generation capabilities are part of our fighter force design that outpaces key competitors.”

The F-35A has several panels that are frequently removed for routine maintenance, and there are various fasteners that keep body panels in place. Without this maintenance, the jet’s ability to avoid radar and various defense systems using specialized materials can deteriorate.
“The panels undergo a very in-depth process of different coatings just to remove the latches and cover the fasteners. In the end, there has to be a balance of covering the panel with the proper material while also maintaining full functionality,” says Staff Sgt. Matthew Hicks, 419th Maintenance Squadron low observable craftsman. “This is the most frequent job done in the shop, while encompassing the processes of many of their tasks within the unit.”

Part of maintaining low observable functions is corrosion control where technicians apply and remove coatings that could be covering rust or damage.
“My favorite part of the job is painting because it's kind of like an art,” said Airman 1st Class Evander Esperanza, 388th Maintenance Squadron low observable journeyman. “You get to see it from the beginning and then see it from the end.”

Maintaining this radar absorbent coating on the surface of the F-35 is a job that takes very detail-oriented, sometimes tedious work – masking every small area, properly mixing chemicals, applying them precisely, smoothing, and assessing the smallest imperfections.
The work done by these craftsmen ensure that the coating looks aesthetically pleasing so its noticeable to others working on the jet that everything is covered underneath and unable to get damaged. Without these coatings, equipment can corrode and delay flight line operations.
“We take pride in being experts in our craft because it depends so much on us,” Knowles said. “There is definitely an art to what we do.”