Stealth

Taylor Stevenson · **Posted:** Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:40 pm

I don't know much about modern warbirds. My question is: What countries possess and have implemented stealth technology in their military aircraft? As far as I know we are the only ones. F-117, B-2, F-35, F-22, anymore?

JDK · **Posted:** Wed Jul 18, 2007 11:42 pm

Germany, W.W.I

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11319

YB-49 was reportedly very stealthy.

Randy Haskin · **Posted:** Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:20 am

...as was the YF-12/A-12/SR-71. The B-1A was designed to be somewhat stealthy, although the B-1B probably isn't anymore.

mustangdriver · **Posted:** Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:21 am

I remember reading about early tests with fabric covered aircraft being covered in a clear fabric for stealth like features.

michaelharadon · **Posted:** Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:50 am

I've read that a by product of the Mosquito being made mostly out of wood is that it was next to impossible to pick up on radar.

Ollie · **Posted:** Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:02 am

Rafale and Typhoon are what is know as low observable.

John Ceglarek · **Posted:** Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:12 am

I've heard lots of places that the SR-71 was a "stealth" aircraft. While it's true that it had a smaller rader signature than normal due to the skin and paint absorbing radar waves, it was not a stealth aircraft in the sense that the F117 and B2 are. It was much more easily observed than either of these two aircraft, and unlike these two aircraft did not rely on being low-observable as a means of defense. In fact, there are lots of examples of radar-guided SAMs having been launched at and tracked SR-71s...until they ran out of fuel. And I personally have a hard time calling anything that leaves a sonic footprint that large (over 1/2 mile wide, IIRC), stealthy.

My .02 worth.

John

JDK · **Posted:** Thu Jul 19, 2007 7:28 am

mustangdriver wrote:

I remember reading about early tests with fabric covered aircraft being covered in a clear fabric for stealth like features.

Score.

Accidental stealth:
http://www.fiddlersgreen.net/AC/aircraf ... /taube.php

There was another German Great War experimental type, with a fuselage covered in a clear film. Can't find the reference though. Anyone?

Interesting article here. Of course one needs to define terms, too.

http://www.espionageinfo.com/Sp-Te/Stea ... ology.html

I can't agree with: "(Black is also a low visibility color at night, at any altitude.)" - In W.W.II it was discovered that was simply not true, like any camouflage, night camouflage is a more complex challenge than 'paint it black'.

Not mentioned so far were USN efforts to render their aircraft 'invisible' to U-boat lookouts by having lights fitted on the wing leading edges, connected to a photo-electric cell and resister which arranged for the bulbs to be as bright as the sky behind the aircraft. Sounds cranky, but it worked and was tested on an Avenger and later a Liberator. IIRC it wasn't used because the batteries took away from the ordinance, but more critically that other issues took over.

Cheers

TAdan · **Posted:** Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:10 am

JDK wrote:

There was another German Great War experimental type, with a fuselage covered in a clear film. Can't find the reference though. Anyone?

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought it was actually the Russians who played with this idea (in the 20's?). Apparently it was effective, but the clear film was light sensitive and would turn opaque after a time in the sun.

JDK · **Posted:** Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:25 am

TAdan wrote:

JDK wrote:

There was another German Great War experimental type, with a fuselage covered in a clear film. Can't find the reference though. Anyone?

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought it was actually the Russians who played with this idea (in the 20's?). Apparently it was effective, but the clear film was light sensitive and would turn opaque after a time in the sun.

Maybe, but there was definitely a German W.W.I aircraft tested (not operational, IIRC).

The article I referenced above:

Quote:

In 1912, German designers produced a largely transparent monoplane; its wings and fuselage were covered by a transparent material derived from cellulose, the basis of movie film, rather than the opaque canvas standard in that era. Interior struts and other parts were painted with light colors to further reduce visibility. The plane was effectively invisible from the ground when flow at 900 ft (274 m) or higher, and faintly visible at lower altitudes. Several transparent German aircraft saw combat during World War I, and Soviet aircraft designers attempted the design of transparent aircraft in the 1930s.

It's bothering me now.

TAdan · **Posted:** Thu Jul 19, 2007 8:29 am

Ok, I am probably thinking of the later Russian attempt. I guess the Germans did try it first.

chico · **Posted:** Thu Jul 19, 2007 9:12 am

John Ceglarek wrote:

I've heard lots of places that the SR-71 was a "stealth" aircraft. While it's true that it had a smaller rader signature than normal due to the skin and paint absorbing radar waves, it was not a stealth aircraft in the sense that the F117 and B2 are.

John

I respectfully disagree. To paraphrase Capt. Jack Sparrow "Stealth isn't exactly a code. It's more a set of guidelines." Sure, the Mossie was "stealth" because it was made of wood. It was also defeating radar sets that were glorified FM transmitters. The whole principle of "stealth" has very little to do with paint, coatings, skin materials, etc. While those coatings are designed to help reduce the radar signature the aircraft puts out, the real "stealthiness" comes from the design.

Radar works by bouncing EM radiation off of a flat surface and measuring the return. If you deflect the waves coming in so that they're not being reflected back to the source, you're not giving a return, and you're "invisible." That was the whole theory laid out in Ufimtsev's paper "Method of Edge Waves in the Physical Theory of Diffraction", which was the key behind the design of the F-117.

Now, The SR-71 was designed to have a low radar signature for its primary role, skirting around Soviet airspace taking pictures. From a side looking radar perspective, there's not much to reflect (ever notice that the tail is angled on both sides?) In that sense, it's exactly like the B-2. From the side, there's not much to bounce a radar wave off of. From the bottom, different story. You could also apply this to the B-1B. The curved surfaces aren't just there for looks. Flat, sharp angles reflect. reduce these angles, you reduce your signature.

"Stealth" technology gets talked about as if it's a part, like an oil pump or a GPS unit. It's more like a design practice, like swept wings. You can have some, a lot, a little, or none at all, It just depends on the role.

John Ceglarek · **Posted:** Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:10 am

Phil, I know how radar works, and I know the basics of how modern stealth technology works. My point is that the SR-71 did not rely on stealth for it's primary means of defense. For instance, the F117 only flies night missions because during the day it's a sitting duck. Even the B2, if I understand correctly, flies routes which maximize the distance to oposing radar sites. Not so for the SR-71. She flew with impunity wherever and whenever she wanted to. And yes, she flew around Soviet airspace, but that was a polical decision, not one driven by operational constraints. And make no mistake, you could see an SR-71 on radar, much easier than you can today's stealth aircraft.

I guess maybe it's a matter of semantics.

John

Warbird Information Exchange

Stealth

Who is online