
An F-22 Raptor’s Crumbling Radar Absorbent Skin - Alupis
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/29218/these-images-of-an-f-22-raptors-crumbling-radar-absorbent-skin-are-fascinating
======
zimbu668
And it's impossible to make replacement parts for the F-22 now. The US
military paid Lockheed Martin to store all the custom tooling and manuals in
case the production line needed to be restarted. A few years later that was
attempted and the shipping containers holding all the tooling were empty!

[https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/solution-
americas...](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/solution-
americas-f-35-nightmare-why-not-build-more-f-22s-13858)

I'm genuinely fascinated by this, but haven't been able to find more
information. Was there an investigation? Did the tooling just get sent to the
scrap heap? Who signed off on empty storage containers?

~~~
wil421
There is a semi-follow up article from the same source that says tooling was
not lost.

>Moreover, the Air Force is auditing the Sierra Army Depot to make sure that
the F-22 manufacturing tooling is secure—and thus far everything is in order.
The audit is 85 percent complete and thus far all of the tooling has been
found. Earlier, some Air Force officials had expressed concerns that the
equipment had been misplaced—however, those concerns were unfounded as it
turns out.[1]

[1][https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-air-
forces...](https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/the-us-air-forces-
stealth-f-22-raptor-will-fly-until-2060-21329)

~~~
zimbu668
Thank you. That's not nearly as exciting as all of it being stolen by Chinese
spies, but "we looked in the wrong boxes at first" is a much more believable
answer.

~~~
syshum
Maybe they were stolen.... Copied then put back before the Auditors got
their.....

~~~
gonational
X-Files theme resumes!

------
sschueller
Is it really possible to hide an aircraft from modern radar? Even if the
aircraft had a radar footprint of a bird, no bird flies near or over mach 1.

~~~
SEJeff
There are two types of radar for virtually everything air defense. The first
type searches the entire skies and is for finding aircraft. Networked versions
of this are much harder for stealth aircraft to hide from entirely however
they have the radar signature of small birds. The S400 and upcoming S500 from
Russia is an excellent version of this, but is itself vulnerable to electronic
warfare countermeasures. Turning the sensitivity down low enough to detect
small birds makes it impossible to use the radars from a practical sense.

The second type of radar has an extremely narrow beam and is for targeting.
This is the radar that locks onto a plane to direct missiles at it to shoot it
down. This is the one that stealth aircraft pretty much entirely defeat. So in
short, they can see the planes on occasion, and try to lock, but can't get a
target lock. When they try, the stealth airplanes will often release rf
tracking missiles and blow them up.

I was a UAV (civilian term: "drone") pilot of the Shadow 200 TUAV in the US
Army circa 2001-2005 and Iraq 2003-2004. The Shadow 200 TUAV was what was
deemed "effective stealth" in that it had composite material with low radar
signature and radar absorbing paint. The exhaust was dampened and came out
about 1" from the propeller on the top so unless you were flying above, the
thermal footprint was miniscule. We did some drills with our own Patriot air
defense units and they said they had to set their radars so low they were
picking up big birds. They also told us that simply wasn't possible to do in
wartime.

~~~
kilo_bravo_3
Also, the S400 and practically all ground-based long range radar systems have
electronic footprints that make them stand out on sensor platforms designed to
detect radars like high powered flashlights in a dark room allowing them to be
easily mapped (for avoidance) and targeted (for destruction, if necessary)
from over the horizon and far beyond the range of the systems themselves.

Systems like the Sx00 are very useful if there are multiple rings of them
surrounding a static high-value target and you want to defeat a fleet of B-52s
(or certain types of ballistic missiles) that are approaching.

They are borderline useless against any adversary that has low observability
aircraft and a modern suppression of enemy air defenses (SEAD) capability.

Israel has demonstrated this repeatedly, but Russian marketing is very good
and (mainly Middle Eastern) countries are still pumping wasted dollars into
buying air defense systems.

In years of conflict Israel has launched thousands (2,000 in 2018 alone) of
missiles at Syrian targets, and a grand total of one (1) F-16I has been shot
down, and that was because the pilots were cocky (both survived) and they were
loitering at high altitude doing battle damage assessments.

In response to the shoot-down, the launchers that fired the missile were
destroyed the same day. Not only do the Russian missiles keep missing, but
Israel keeps using their anti-missile missiles to shoot down the Russian
missiles before they can fall on populated areas after missing their targets.

~~~
toss1
Indeed! And form working with guys in the stealth/radar biz, there's a saying
about trying to use radar to guide your missiles:

"He who lights up first gets smoked"

As in, once you turn on your tracking radar, you effectively shine a really
bright beacon for anyone to see. If you are the ground station trying to get a
lock on the thing that the long-range area radar saw, suddenly you are the
brightest target in the area. You might have a few seconds before the plane
you are trying to hit sends a missile right down your beam. Same for a pilot
if he tries to scan for a target.

~~~
tempguy9999
A couple of questions from a civvie: does one physically separate the radar
from the (manned) station using it so you only get borked cheapish equipment
rather than dead people and expensive ground-based station wrecked? And isn't
faking a few radar 'lights' a good way to use up the opposition aircraft's
missiles? Naive I know but it's not my area.

~~~
SEJeff
Excellent question, and it is standard operating procedure. We had ~100m
cables for our actual dishes that we used to control the Shadow 200 and always
kept them far away from where we were flying if at all feasible. Most nations
do this, however some missiles are set to go towards the rf and then switch to
visual identification of targets to say blow up the control station.

------
dogma1138
Doesn’t look like the actual airframe is degrading, it’s the nose it’s likely
the composite RADOME that is degrading, if it’s even material degradation the
damage looks almost like a bird or an object strike.

The description of the internal structure also seems to be quite similar to
other RADOME even marine ones.

~~~
jjoonathan
Over the last decade or so I've gotten the chance to use a number of antenna
/accessories made of uwave RADOME plastic from a few different vendors and in
all cases the plastic was cracked, crumbling, taped together, etc. It seems
like a systematic problem.

I bet there are a bunch of polymer chemists who know exactly what's going on.

~~~
dogma1138
I have a feeling that it's a combination of two things.

1) The plastics might need to be made out of a very specific material which
might not be very stable in the long term.

2) RADARs get freaking bloody hot and even a few % of absorption might be
enough to essentially make them into a microwave oven.

I'm guessing some combination of the material, pure heat and radiation might
be the cause of these plastics breaking down but I'm not a material engineer
however this is something that I've also encountered.

I have had experience with SAR pods and their RADOMEs have had to be
constantly replaced due to degradation as well.

In fact in spot/strip mode it wouldn't be uncommon to see actual discoloration
of the RADOME after a few flights.

~~~
jjoonathan
Most of the crumbling RADOME material I've seen has been on receive-only
antennae, because that's what I deal with regularly, so I don't think it's
purely a power thing.

My working hypothesis is more in line with your (1), that plasticizer is the
major absorbing component of the plastic, so to make RADOME plastic you just
leave out the plasticizer and live with crumbly plastic. But I'm no polymer
chemist, so that's really just speculation.

------
maxerickson
They should just call every modern fighter "Icarus".

~~~
JustSomeNobody
"Modern" \- Move fast and break stuff while delivering crap.

------
wcoenen
> _flying this aircraft is extremely expensive with an average flight hour
> cost of about $60k_

This made me wonder how many disposable small drones could be mass produced
for that price. Like in the "slaughterbots" video, or the "hated in the
nation" bee drones.

~~~
Whack-kneed
Less than you might think.... Drones are (over)priced like jewelry (because
they can!) For example, the drone shot down by Iran last month was valued at
85 mil.

~~~
sdinsn
> Drones are (over)priced like jewelry (because they can!)

That's a pretty dishonest take. Those drones are incredibly complex.

------
jorblumesea
Sounds like what we've been used to from the military industrial complex. Over
promised, over budget, under delivered with huge maintenance contracts and
terrible shelf life.

It used to be the defense industry produced equipment worth having, just
wastefully. Now we can't even produce properly designed planes.

------
wazoox
And what about what looks like rust smears around the rivets?

This doesn't look like the master of the skies to me. It looks like decadence
of the military industrial complex, and bad use of $400 millions of taxpayer
money. It looks like the most inefficient way of financing jobs across a
country ever...

~~~
kuzehanka
Huh? The F-22 is the most capable manned fighter that exists on the planet,
not even US adversaries dispute it being the master of the skies. It allows
missions that would be otherwise impossible. Yes, the price of that is high.

~~~
computerex
Do you have a source to back this up?

~~~
outworlder
These "source" requests are tiring. What about you do some googling? If this
is obviously false it won't take too much time to disprove it, right?

I would be surprised if any credible source claimed that there was something
better than the F-22. The possible competitors are either not in the same
ballpark or not really ready for anything other than airshows.

~~~
computerex
You are mistaking Hacker news for reddit. The burden of proof lies on the
person making fantastic claims. I obviously have sources saying the contrary
that's why I disagree with your sentiment. That's why I'm interested to see
the sources claiming the contrary.

Maybe you should do some googling yourself and you'll find footage of French
Rafale wiping the floor with the raptor in a simulated dogfight.

~~~
nickserv
The point of the F22 is that you don't get into a dogfight in the first place,
you blow the adversary away from beyond visible range. The Rafale is a very
good plane, but is not as stealthy as the Raptor.

In any case, it will be years before we can say which is the superior plane,
since all the good stuff is classified.

~~~
computerex
Americans have been saying that wvr combat is over for like over 50 years.
Even the US airforce doesn't believe this otherwise they wouldn't be drilling
for wvr combat.

The point is, no one has enough data to claim that the raptor is absolutely
the most superior and dominant fighter jet. Making that claim simply based on
stealth is foolish.

~~~
kuzehanka
Pilots train and will continue to train on wvr combat because those are the
basic piloting and combat skills required regardless of what you're flying.
They're going to continue drilling wvr even if they had a hypothetical
perfectly stealth unobservable plane just because those are the drills that
make a fighter pilot.

Spend a couple days learning a flight combat sim like DCS and it will become
crystal clear that stealth is not only an advantage, it is almost unbeatable
by a 4th gen fighter without additional support. If you're in a 4th gen
fighter, your offensive options are pretty much nonexistent against a low
observable fighter. The best thing you can do is dodge the first 1/2 fox-3 it
throws at you, turn off your radar, and get out while you still have a plane.
We're not even talking about standoff weapons yet.

Even if you somehow got into a wvr dogfight against an F-22, you'd still lose
because it's one of a handful of fighters capable of supermaneuverability. [1]

There are 187 operational F-22, they've been in service for 14 years, and
they've had zero losses. Go ahead and try to find anything that comes even
close.

"The F-22 achieved Full Operational Capability (FOC) in December 2007, when
General John Corley of Air Combat Command (ACC) officially declared the F-22s
of the integrated active duty 1st Fighter Wing and Virginia Air National Guard
192d Fighter Wing fully operational.[151] This was followed by an Operational
Readiness Inspection (ORI) of the integrated wing in April 2008, in which it
was rated "excellent" in all categories, with a simulated kill-ratio of
221–0.[152]"

Given the fact that there have been 0 losses and those planes haven't been
sitting idle in storage for the past decade, it's a pretty good bet that their
real world perf is better than the simulated 221-0.

[1]
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJO0KzTgcMI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RJO0KzTgcMI)

~~~
computerex
F22 hasn't seen combat vs a capable airforce so its hard to take the
aforementioned "kill ratios" seriously. Basing your reasoning on a video game
is also not the best source of information.

The airforce drills for wvr because history has shown that dogfighting is
inevitable. That's the basis of Russian airforce program and that's why the
flanker airframe is still the most agile and will run literal circles around
the raptor.

~~~
kuzehanka
I feel like I stepped in mud for trying to engage in actual conversation with
you and getting this drivel back as a response.

~~~
computerex
Right because personal attacks are not drivel /s. You are making completely
baseless assertions with nothing to back them up. And you are resorting to
personal attacks because you have nothing credible left to say.

[https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-F-22-Raptor-compare-to-
th...](https://www.quora.com/How-does-the-F-22-Raptor-compare-to-the-Sukhoi-
SU-35)

The raptor is insanely overrated and video games aren't going to convince
anyone reasonable. Keep the personal attacks to yourself or I'll report you.

------
mothsonasloth
Does the F35 JSF have the same material? Will that mean spiralling maintenance
costs for both fleets (US and allies)?

Surely its better to invest in SEAD (AA suppression) and better counter
measures like lasers?

~~~
SEJeff
The ideal modern SEAD combo is the F22 flying ahead to designate targets and
using the F35 as the "gun truck" to launch missiles at targets the F22 sends
it.

------
umvi
Seems like it would be cheaper to have non-stealth F-22 coatings for training,
and then only apply the costly stealth coatings if doing actual missions?

~~~
JshWright
It's mentioned several times in the article that there are various readiness
levels that have different requirements for stealth coatings. It mentions that
roughly a third of the fleet is not combat coated, etc.

~~~
greedo
Combat "coded."

------
djohnston
who do you have to know to get a joyride in one of these? do the trainers even
have two seats?

~~~
mikeash
You’ll have a much easier time getting a ride in a Russian jet. MiG-29 rides
go for something in the neighborhood of $15-20,000.

~~~
mothsonasloth
Become friends with Larry Ellison, he has a Mig29 thats fully serviced.

~~~
bitL
"Unofficially", officially he has some Italian clunker. MiG-29 is considered a
weapon that can't be held privately.

~~~
greedo
He owns the Fulcrum, he just has been refused an import permit. Lots of
private companies own warplanes, but the ownership by individuals is
problematic in the US.

------
cairo_x
I AM THE GHOST OF THE YF-23.

SEE YOU IN HELL, B*TCH.

~~~
greedo
F-23 would have had the same skin coating technology as the F-22. The F-35 has
benefitted greatly by research done since the designs were finalized.

~~~
cairo_x
What on earth made you think I was implying it wouldn't have? It was a joke
about an imaginary f-23 ghost having schadenfreude. Sorry to everyone I've
offend who down-voted this. LOL. XD

------
Zenst
How much is UV factored into the design of materials in outer surfaces with
regards to aircraft is my initial thought here.

Given the effects of UV can be most damaging and aircraft would as higher
elevation be at an increased risk of higher UV levels than you would at ground
level.

~~~
scld
It's very factored in.

------
wtdata
I don't get it. Why not just keep a smaller part of the fleet with radar
absorbent skin in top notch condition (and barely use it outside mission, thus
keeping it in a good condition) and keep the other part of the fleet entirely
without this feature, for usage in scenarios where it's not needed?

~~~
vilhelm_s
The F-22s are already a small part of the U.S. air force fleet, which need to
be saved for scenarios that require their unique capabilities. There are 187
F-22s, while the air force has e.g. 473 F-15s and 1,245 F-16s.

