Penetrating Counter Air / Next Generation Air Dominance

[zero-one]

Came across this article regarding Lockheed's new CNT based RAM
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100271253

The composite is capable of absorbing radar in a frequency range from between about 0.10 Megahertz to about 60 Gigahertz.The CNT-infused fiber material forms a first layer that reduces radar reflectance and a second layer that dissipates the energy of the absorbed radar

If I'm getting this correctly, then there is a way to improve the effective frequesncy range of current VLO platforms's RCS with regards to their effect on different radar bands. The new material is said to be effective from 100 KHz (LF band) all the way to 60 GHz (EHF band)

[marauder2048]

a. the US is heavily reliant on imports from the PRC and Russia
b. DOD is susceptible to pricing/scheduling competition from commercial aerospace
c. there are long material lead times for processing/finishing

A. Well Canada is a good source, but you know what, the US is actually the World's top Titanium exporter despite not being the top Titanium producer.
Read here: https://oec.world/en/profile/hs92/8108/

B. Pretty sure the US can produce it's own Titanium for sensitive defense projects.

The US is 80% dependent on titanium imports. There's one vulnerable domestic supplier of titanium sponge
and the National Defense Stockpile that was to have to provided 30,000 tons (about a year of production)
was sold off a decade ago.

[disconnectedradical]

But That just a concept art, historically speaking most concept arts require major redesigns, decades of development time and billions of dollars in testing. Nobody is even sure if it will actually fly or have RCS returns better than the F-22.

Yes having less control surfaces and protruding surfaces will improve RCS? But exactly by how much? We don't know. The saying goes, "if it was so good, everyone would be doing it". So far, no pelican tail design has made it passed the prototype stage.

Dassault NGF? Japanese F-3? And all US concepts are pushing it further by having no tails at all. It's ridiculous that you think one tail configuration is better just because of a popularity contest from historical aircraft without considering all requirements and design considerations.

Using older aircraft designs to fulfill future roles is nothing new.
The F/A-18E fulfills the role that the A-12 and NATF should have filled
It was done due to budget restrictions for the Navy at the time, exactly what the USAF is facing now.
but it's worked pretty well so far.

And the F/A-18E/F airframe is pretty outclassed by likes of Rafale, Typhoon, maybe even Su-35, only the avionics and training kept Super Hornet competitive. Is that the situation you want to risk having by making some super F-22 face off against European FCAS, or Tempest, or improved Su-57s?

Came across this article regarding Lockheed's new CNT based RAM
https://patents.google.com/patent/US20100271253

The composite is capable of absorbing radar in a frequency range from between about 0.10 Megahertz to about 60 Gigahertz.The CNT-infused fiber material forms a first layer that reduces radar reflectance and a second layer that dissipates the energy of the absorbed radar

If I'm getting this correctly, then there is a way to improve the effective frequesncy range of current VLO platforms's RCS with regards to their effect on different radar bands. The new material is said to be effective from 100 KHz (LF band) all the way to 60 GHz (EHF band)

This material is useful if your aircraft is large enough to exploit it, otherwise if the wavelength is same order of magnitude as your aircraft or major parts of it, then it won't matter because Rayleigh scattering has to do with relationship between physical size and wavelength. Looking at the date of the patent it might have to do with Boeing/Lockheed LRS-B design that lost to Northrop Grumman's B-21.

[zero-one]

Dassault NGF? Japanese F-3? And all US concepts are pushing it further by having no tails at all. It's ridiculous that you think one tail configuration is better just because of a popularity contest from historical aircraft without considering all requirements and design considerations.

Have you seen the F-3 or it's X-2 Prototype? That's basically an F-22's tail. Yes its a popularity contest, if it works everyone will follow. That's how the military is. thats why everyone is on the Stealth wagon in the first place.

So far, no one has used that design beyond the prototype stage which just tells me the advantages are just not enough to outweigh the disadvantages

And the F/A-18E/F airframe is pretty outclassed by likes of Rafale, Typhoon, maybe even Su-35

Maybe, but PCA is a family of systems, so outclassing one component of the PCA doesn't mean the PCA family itself is outclassed as a system.

The F-22 is like the F-15, the F-15C still holds its own pretty well against the Typhoon, Rafale and Flanker. Imagine if the
F-22 never existed and instead we went with Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle. A modernized, Eagle with no pound for air to ground and reduced RCS with PW-229 motors and all the latest avionics.

I'd say that jet would still be the best A-A platform today, the margin won't be as large as the Raptor's but certainly still the best. That's how a modernized Raptor could be, I believe it will still hold its own against the Tempest and any version of the Su-57 or J-20. And its just 1 part of the PCA family.

This material is useful if your aircraft is large enough to exploit it, otherwise if the wavelength is same order of magnitude as your aircraft or major parts of it, then it won't matter because Rayleigh scattering has to do with relationship between physical size and wavelength.

The material is used on the F-35 and may be used on the F-22 as well. Why would they bother if there are no advantages
https://www.quora.com/Why-is-the-F35-in ... lth-planes

Lockheed filed a patent in 2010 about a CNT based RAM (used in F-35) capable of absorbing EM waves from 0.1 MHz to 60 GHz with particular effectiveness in L through K-band. So modern VLO aircraft like F-35 are a lot stealthier at Low Frequency bands than their shaping implies.

[marauder2048]

This material is useful if your aircraft is large enough to exploit it, otherwise if the wavelength is same order of magnitude as your aircraft or major parts of it, then it won't matter because Rayleigh scattering

That would actually be resonance scattering where RAM would be useful.

[disconnectedradical]

Have you seen the F-3 or it's X-2 Prototype? That's basically an F-22's tail. Yes its a popularity contest, if it works everyone will follow. That's how the military is. thats why everyone is on the Stealth wagon in the first place.

So far, no one has used that design beyond the prototype stage which just tells me the advantages are just not enough to outweigh the disadvantages

December 2019 JASDF paper which showed the latest F-3 design.

https://www.mod.go.jp/j/yosan/yosan_gai ... 191220.pdf



That tail is nothing like F-22's.

Maybe, but PCA is a family of systems, so outclassing one component of the PCA doesn't mean the PCA family itself is outclassed as a system.

The F-22 is like the F-15, the F-15C still holds its own pretty well against the Typhoon, Rafale and Flanker. Imagine if the
F-22 never existed and instead we went with Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle. A modernized, Eagle with no pound for air to ground and reduced RCS with PW-229 motors and all the latest avionics.

I'd say that jet would still be the best A-A platform today, the margin won't be as large as the Raptor's but certainly still the best. That's how a modernized Raptor could be, I believe it will still hold its own against the Tempest and any version of the Su-57 or J-20. And its just 1 part of the PCA family.

On what grounds do you say F-22 will hold its own against the new European fighters? Even then you prefer to have a situation similar to F-15SE against Typhoon, Rafale, Su-35. And then start developing actual next gen at the same time as China and Russia? This would be throwing away our lead just for more F-22s. For how much you tout F-22's maneuverability over other aircraft, it's strange you want to have PCA be a super F-22 where the kinematic advantage over Tempest or FCAS will probably be gone, like F-15 against Typhoon or Rafale or Su-35.

This material is useful if your aircraft is large enough to exploit it, otherwise if the wavelength is same order of magnitude as your aircraft or major parts of it, then it won't matter because Rayleigh scattering

That would actually be resonance scattering where RAM would be useful.

I'll defer to people who know more about the physics but my understanding is RAM is mainly useful for non-resonant edge and surface diffraction, since resonant RAM usually is optimized for single frequency.

[wrightwing]

I'll defer to people who know more about the physics but my understanding is RAM is mainly useful for non-resonant edge and surface diffraction, since resonant RAM usually is optimized for single frequency.

RAM can be effective against a broad range of frequencies, as the CNT based RAM has demonstrated. This is why folks that believe F-22s/F-35s are only stealthy vs X band are wildly misinformed. Shaping is still the most important aspect, but modern RAM can offer significant broadband signature reduction.

[Corsair1963]

[quote="disconnectedradical"]

December 2019 JASDF paper which showed the latest F-3 design.

https://www.mod.go.jp/j/yosan/yosan_gai ... 191220.pdf

How many time do we have to say it??? There is no F-3 and the above picture is just a "possible" concept!

[zero-one]

December 2019 JASDF paper which showed the latest F-3 design.

Is there official statements from the Japanese that this is an actual final design. Because if not, then this is another concept art.

On what grounds do you say F-22 will hold its own against the new European fighters?

Depending on how they develop it for PCA...If they will use it for PCA. I am not pushing for the F-22 to be PCA, All I'm saying is that its a good option if they want to meet their time table and budget.

For how much you tout F-22's maneuverability over other aircraft, it's strange you want to have PCA be a super F-22 where the kinematic advantage over Tempest or FCAS will probably be gone, like F-15 against Typhoon or Rafale or Su-35.

I already said that if it were up to me, I want a clean sheet design too, but its not up to me, its up to an organization that wants to have PCA ready by 2030. If we're going with that, the F-22 will have to do. I just don't see any clean sheets done in that time frame.

Having said that, most recent designs seems to have more emphasis on broadband stealth than sheer performance, which could explain why there are more concept arts using the pelican design over 4 tail designs.

Personally I believe the difference isn't much to begin with, but if you want to stack as many advantages as possible, then I suppose every square millimeter in reduction is welcome.

I don't think Tempest will have eye watering performance at all, The wing design is similar to that of the X-32 which was supposed to be redesigned to 4 tails and according to Battle of the X-Planes by Nova, the X-32's wing design isn't particularly maneuverable.

The F-3 and Dasault NGF, if they will in fact go with those concept art styles, seems to be akeen to the YF-23, which according to Northrop executives themselves is not as maneuverable as the Lockheed's design. So at the very least the F-22A should have comparable performance to those designs. Neither you or I have the performance figures of these new prototypes so we're both guessing here.

Again, I am for a clean sheet design, but with the demands of the USAF, I can't see it happening. An F-22 with all the advancements in engine, RAM coatings and avionics, complemented by other aircraft from the PCA family will hold its own against anything the Chinese or Russians throw at it

[mixelflick]

I honestly think we're going to see a scaled up YF-23 derivative used, that's been flying for some time already. As many know, that was sort of alluded to in prior comments from a (Northrop?) executive. Something to the effect of, "the YF-23 may still be flying in some form or fashion" or some such claim.

If someone was smart enough to say, "wow, this thing really has potential. Let's build a few more copies to flight test under a black program", good for them. At the very least, it would have been an option had the Raptor run into difficulties. At the time, it wasn't a certainty full scale production would go swimmingly. Both aircraft were put through their paces, but significant design changes ensued. Look at the difference between YF-22A and the production F-22A. Big changes in moving the air intakes back, clipping the wings and reducing the size (imagine that) of the vertical tails. The horizontal tails are entirely different. What emerged was a much more pleasing outline IMO, but more importantly - any one of those changes could have given them major problems.

What's really needed now is a catalyst, like the Mig-25 was to the F-15. Lacking that, we're going to see a mix of F-15EX's, F-22's and F-35's carry the load until PCA gets here. I hope its enough...

[wrightwing]

I already said that if it were up to me, I want a clean sheet design too, but its not up to me, its up to an organization that wants to have PCA ready by 2030. If we're going with that, the F-22 will have to do. I just don't see any clean sheets done in that time frame.

The USAF doesn't have a 2030 timeline for the PCA to enter service.

Again, I am for a clean sheet design, but with the demands of the USAF, I can't see it happening. An F-22 with all the advancements in engine, RAM coatings and avionics, complemented by other aircraft from the PCA family will hold its own against anything the Chinese or Russians throw at it

F-22s can handle Su-57s and J-20s. What they can't handle is a >1000nm combat radius. There are no USAF demands for a 2030 IOC, so let's stop repeating an air force O-6, that doesn't make those kinds of decisions.

[disconnectedradical]

December 2019 JASDF paper which showed the latest F-3 design.

Is there official statements from the Japanese that this is an actual final design. Because if not, then this is another concept art.

And the X-2 demonstrator is not the final design either, and considering that even after the X-2 they were still exploring 2 tails vs 4 tails, premature of you to use F-3 as example of having F-22 type tail.

I already said that if it were up to me, I want a clean sheet design too, but its not up to me, its up to an organization that wants to have PCA ready by 2030. If we're going with that, the F-22 will have to do. I just don't see any clean sheets done in that time frame.

Stop repeating 2030 IOC, only some people in USAF have suggested that date, it's not the official position. And if the only goal is 2030 IOC at the cost of long term air superiority strategy then it's an empty plan.

Having said that, most recent designs seems to have more emphasis on broadband stealth than sheer performance, which could explain why there are more concept arts using the pelican design over 4 tail designs.

Personally I believe the difference isn't much to begin with, but if you want to stack as many advantages as possible, then I suppose every square millimeter in reduction is welcome.

I don't think Tempest will have eye watering performance at all, The wing design is similar to that of the X-32 which was supposed to be redesigned to 4 tails and according to Battle of the X-Planes by Nova, the X-32's wing design isn't particularly maneuverable.

The F-3 and Dasault NGF, if they will in fact go with those concept art styles, seems to be akeen to the YF-23, which according to Northrop executives themselves is not as maneuverable as the Lockheed's design. So at the very least the F-22A should have comparable performance to those designs. Neither you or I have the performance figures of these new prototypes so we're both guessing here.

Wow, you're quick to propose than European fighter designs 20 years newer than F-22 won't be as maneuverable, just by eyeballing the wing planform. I guess if we want to use your logic of extrapolating Northrop executive's comments, F-22 won't be as fast or stealthy either.

[zero-one]

Wow, you're quick to propose than European fighter designs 20 years newer than F-22 won't be as maneuverable, just by eyeballing the wing planform.

But didn't you say

Its strange that you want PCA to be a super F-22 when the Kinematic advantage over the Tempest and FCAS will probably be gone

So what makes your eyeball exam valid and mine not?

Whenever YF-23 folks talk about their beautiful airplane, I take it with a grain of salt. For one thing Paul Metz said that nobody outside of the decision pannel knew the results for both aircraft, by design and by intent it was done that way.

But here we have Northrop guys saying their airplane was "much faster" and "much stealthier".
In contrast to publicly released reports and even graphs shown by Paul Metz, the YF-23 was only marginally faster, in fact the YF-22 was tested to a faster absolute top speed according to Metz's slide.

On the other hand any admission of inferiority from either side is another story. You can see this when Jim Sandberg says Thrust vectoring will "add a few increments in post stall controlability" which was not deemed tactically necessary.

Sorry, but I don't see how the YF-23 can perform post stall maneuvers at 0 forward air speed that we see the Raptor does. I dont see how it can match the Sursonic trim where TVC is used for when cruising.

[disconnectedradical]

So what makes your eyeball exam valid and mine not?

I didn't "eyeball exam", I just said that the FCAS or Tempest being 20 years newer can very well exceed the kinematics of F-22, considering how the newer Typhoon and Rafale beats F-15 (especially Typhoon).

These new European fighters will probably be designed from start to use ADVENT-type engines.

Whenever YF-23 folks talk about their beautiful airplane, I take it with a grain of salt. For one thing Paul Metz said that nobody outside of the decision pannel knew the results for both aircraft, by design and by intent it was done that way.

But here we have Northrop guys saying their airplane was "much faster" and "much stealthier".
In contrast to publicly released reports and even graphs shown by Paul Metz, the YF-23 was only marginally faster, in fact the YF-22 was tested to a faster absolute top speed according to Metz's slide.

On the other hand any admission of inferiority from either side is another story. You can see this when Jim Sandberg says Thrust vectoring will "add a few increments in post stall controlability" which was not deemed tactically necessary.

Sorry, but I don't see how the YF-23 can perform post stall maneuvers at 0 forward air speed that we see the Raptor does. I dont see how it can match the Sursonic trim where TVC is used for when cruising.

But when F-22 folks talk about their airplane you don't doubt any of it? You should see what Paul Metz said in this book.
https://www.amazon.com/Northrop-YF-23-A ... 0989258378

Page 73, "Their [Northrop engineers’] consolation was that the eventual decision was apparently not made on the basis of the aircraft but rather on the perception of management of an F-23A development and production program."

You seem to very quickly accept any positive claims about F-22, but when there's anything said that can exceed it you get very defensive. Sorry, this bias is hard to have a reasonable discussion with.

And since you've clearly not studied aerodynamics or an engineer, I don't care if you don't "see" how an airplane can or can't do something. Regarding trim drag, the main factor is position of CG relative to aerodynamic center, and F-23 EMD drawing shows CG aft limit of 42% of MAC, which means very low trim drag. And if you knew about aerodynamics you'll know that the most important part of drag when supersonic is wave drag. If you look at the cross section drawings and volume distribution as shown on the drawings, you'll see just how smooth and optimized for wave drag F-23 really is. Maybe F-22 can match that, but it also lost 7,000 lbs of fuel, so what is actually a good trade?

[zero-one]

I didn't "eyeball exam", I just said that the FCAS or Tempest being 20 years newer can very well exceed the kinematics of F-22, considering how the newer Typhoon and Rafale beats F-15 (especially Typhoon).

But you're basing it off your eyeball and historical trends. what if we never had the 22 and instead went with the a Super F-15. Something with PW-F100-232 motors, TVC and APG-63(v3), would it still be kinematically inferior by this margin?

I don't have enough info on the Agile Falcon to comment on it, but it was supposed to be a low cost alternative to the ATF
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_versions_article21.html
But kinematicaly it may hold its own against the Typhoon as the current F-16 is still competitive against it at certain altitudes

You seem to very quickly accept any positive claims about F-22, but when there's anything said that can exceed it you get very defensive. Sorry, this bias is hard to have a reasonable discussion with.

Actually I don't doubt Northrop guys when they say how good their plane is, I believe it. However whenever they say their plane is better than the YF-22, thats a different story.

I tried to look for a counter from Lockheed and their claims on why theirs was better and to my surprise there was very little, actually I couldn't find anything substantial. Just a side comment that they wanted to focus more on maneuverability.

It seems that they conformed to the fact that they actually don't know because as Metz said, nobody outside of the decision panel had access to the side by side comparisons.

consolation was that the eventual decision was apparently not made on the basis of the aircraft but rather on the perception of management of an F-23A development and production program."

Thats why the decision was made but that doesn't automatically translate to the YF-23 being better. Its possible that the YF-22 was better in some or most aspects and Lockheed was also better suited to manage the program, it was a win win.

And since you've clearly not studied aerodynamics or an engineer, I don't care if you don't "see" how an airplane can or can't do something.

You know, you don't need to be this up-tight, I'm here to learn and discuss with you, not to win an argument, When I'm wrong, hey I'm wrong, I'm not afraid to say it. If I'm getting in your nerves, I apologize, you don't need to reply.

Regarding trim drag, the main factor is position of CG relative to aerodynamic center, and F-23 EMD drawing shows CG aft limit of 42% of MAC, which means very low trim drag.

The way I understand trim drag is that its the drag caused by control surface deflection. Now the YF-23 with it's massive tail relies on that for almost everything, people have made the argument that because its very large, it doesn't need to move much.

However, I would think that the amount of Trim drag would still be the same, you'll need to produce the same amount of trim to achieve the same results (correct me if I'm wrong)

optimized for wave drag F-23 really is. Maybe F-22 can match that, but it also lost 7,000 lbs of fuel, so what is actually a good trade?

Well we don't know that for sure, from what has been made public, the YF-23 has marginal advantages in super-cruise speed while the YF-22 was tested to a higher absolute speed, Does the YF-23 have a placard limit at Mach 2+, I don't know.
Is it tactically usable, I think yes, the F-15's procedure to intercept Mig-31s is to punch out everything and leave just 4 Sparrows and accelerate to their absolute top speeds