# Stealth Questions



## comiso90 (Nov 12, 2007)

Stealth and icing: 
How do the F-117, F-22 and F-35 deal with icing? Certainly ice build up would compromise stealth effectiveness. The wings seem too thin for de-icers. We won’t always have the “luxury” of fighting in warm climates. The Arctic may heat up.

How does the F-117 radar footprint compare with the next generation aircraft? 

Stealth is only as good as the radar that is doing the “painting”. There must be theories on how to defeat stealth.. Higher frequency radar? Some totally new technology?

When the F-22 is in a non-tactical situation, I’d assume it must extend a fin or some other reflecting device to appear visible to controllers. Does anybody have a photo of this?

..

thanks


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 12, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Stealth and icing:
> How do the F-117, F-22 and F-35 deal with icing? Certainly ice build up would compromise stealth effectiveness. The wings seem too thin for de-icers. We won’t always have the “luxury” of fighting in warm climates. The Arctic may heat up.


There are anti icing systems in these aircraft, not sure if they are electric or pneumatic...


comiso90 said:


> How does the F-117 radar footprint compare with the next generation aircraft?


I was told the F-22 has twice the stealth effectiveness of the F-117


comiso90 said:


> Stealth is only as good as the radar that is doing the “painting”. There must be theories on how to defeat stealth.. Higher frequency radar? Some totally new technology?


IR and radars that could actually pick of the "wake" of the aircraft have been rumored as ways to defeat Stealth.


comiso90 said:


> When the F-22 is in a non-tactical situation, I’d assume it must extend a fin or some other reflecting device to appear visible to controllers. Does anybody have a photo of this?


It carries a transponder that puts out a squawk code where controllers could "see" it.


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 12, 2007)

Thanks FBJ...

I cant imagine a pneumatic system... That in itself would seem to compromise Stealth. icing has to create issues in extremely cold environments

I know they have transponders but I thought there was a mechanical solution too. It seems there would be value to run "uncloaked" so the bad guys wouldn't know just how good the stealth was.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 12, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Thanks FBJ...
> 
> I cant imagine a pneumatic system... That in itself would seem to compromise Stealth. icing has to create issues in extremely cold environments


It probably will but to pick up ice you have to fly through visible moisture at below freezing temps. I know both the F-117 and B-2 were run though enviornmental test that including icing...


comiso90 said:


> I know they have transponders but I thought there was a mechanical solution too. It seems there would be value to run "uncloaked" so the bad guys wouldn't know just how good the stealth was.


No mechanical means per se although I do know the B-2 had retractable nav lights that when deployed enables it to be picked up on radar, again from what I'm told....


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 12, 2007)

>>No mechanical means per se although I do know the B-2 had retractable nav lights that when deployed enables it to be picked up on radar, again from what I'm told....

That makes sense... I'd like to see all the stealth planes run in full stealth modes only in some training and combat sorties. 

I could see value in them flying in "semi-stealth" mode to lull the bad guys into thinking they can pick them up.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 12, 2007)

I think any Stealth aircraft would run either "Visible" or "invisible." No sense being in the middle....


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 12, 2007)

FLYBOYJ said:


> I think any Stealth aircraft would run either "Visible" or "invisible." No sense being in the middle....



Mixing it up could confuse the bad guys... 

Suppose the Russians/Chinese monitor F-22 intercept missions for 5 years and they think they have a good idea for the radar signature only the stealth aircraft are running in "almost-stealth" configuration with minute changes in the skin causing a tiny reflection.

When a shooting war starts, the F-22 "smooths out" a surface or two and slips into full stealth... All the data the bad guys acquired is thrown out the window...


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 12, 2007)

comiso90 said:


> Mixing it up could confuse the bad guys


...nothing will confuse the bad guys more than having the aircraft run invisible the whole time


----------



## Matt308 (Nov 22, 2007)

X-band radar. Basically the theory is that a single transmitter "paints" the sky where the stealth aircraft may be operating. Since all aircraft reflect to some degree and stealth aircraft minimize reflections directly back to the transmitter, multiple receivers working as a network can be used to measure indirect reflections and triangulate in near realtime the stealth aircraft location.

In theory, this would work great for stealth aircraft like the F-117. And much less so with stealth technologies that absorb radar energy like the F-22.

Stealth aircraft have Mode S transponders for civil tracking. But I have also witnessed B-2 flights with a large trailing antenna (10'-15' long) that I assumed was a means of increasing its signature in some fashion. Perhaps others know.


----------



## T4.H (Nov 29, 2007)

On such a way the F117 was shot down over yugoslavia.
One radar system sends the signals, several systems got back the reflected radar signals from the F117.
By phone they collected the informations from the several radar stations and guided a Mig21 to the target, which at least shot down the F117. Three attacks, two less or more not sucsessful with rockets (which only damaged the F117), at least the Mig shot down the F117 with there guns.

It's said, that the german airfoce can also connect there radar systems on such a way (Patriot). But of couse, they don't use phones...


----------



## Parmigiano (Nov 29, 2007)

T4.H said:


> On such a way the F117 was shot down over yugoslavia.
> One radar system sends the signals, several systems got back the reflected radar signals from the F117.
> By phone they collected the informations from the several radar stations and guided a Mig21 to the target, which at least shot down the F117. Three attacks, two less or more not sucsessful with rockets (which only damaged the F117), at least the Mig shot down the F117 with there guns.
> 
> It's said, that the german airfoce can also connect there radar systems on such a way (Patriot). But of couse, they don't use phones...



that's very interesting....

i thought it was Sinisa Mihajlovich with a free kick and his special weapon: 

" football (or soccer ball). Law 2 of the game specifies that the ball is an air-filled sphere with a circumference of 68–70 cm (or 27–28 inches), a weight of 410–450 g (or 14–16 ounces), inflated to a pressure of 60–110 kPa (or 8.5–15.6 psi), and covered in leather or "other suitable material".[1] The weight specified for a ball is the dry weight: older balls often became significantly heavier in the course of a match played in wet weather. The standard ball is a Size 5."


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 29, 2007)

T4.H said:


> On such a way the F117 was shot down over yugoslavia.
> One radar system sends the signals, several systems got back the reflected radar signals from the F117.
> By phone they collected the informations from the several radar stations and guided a Mig21 to the target, which at least shot down the F117. Three attacks, two less or more not sucsessful with rockets (which only damaged the F117), at least the Mig shot down the F117 with there guns.
> 
> It's said, that the german airfoce can also connect there radar systems on such a way (Patriot). But of couse, they don't use phones...


It's funny - another Yugoslav source says it was an anti-aircraft battery that shot down the F-117A. Then again some of these same folks said they also brought down a B-2!!!


----------



## SoD Stitch (Nov 29, 2007)

T4.H said:


> On such a way the F117 was shot down over yugoslavia.
> One radar system sends the signals, several systems got back the reflected radar signals from the F117.
> By phone they collected the informations from the several radar stations and guided a Mig21 to the target, which at least shot down the F117. Three attacks, two less or more not sucsessful with rockets (which only damaged the F117), at least the Mig shot down the F117 with there guns.
> 
> It's said, that the german airfoce can also connect there radar systems on such a way (Patriot). But of couse, they don't use phones...



Go here for the "true" story on the F-117 shootdown in Kosovo; this article was in the latest issue of Smithsonian's _Air Space Magazine_:

Unconventional Weapon


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 29, 2007)

SoD Stitch said:


> Go here for the "true" story on the F-117 shootdown in Kosovo; this article was in the latest issue of Smithsonian's _Air Space Magazine_:
> 
> Unconventional Weapon



good article, thanks


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 29, 2007)

Good one SoD.

So much for that MiG-21!


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 29, 2007)

Well it's easier to believe that a MiG 21 could shoot down a Stealth with guns rather then missiles... as long as its day time.

.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 29, 2007)

Agree....


----------



## evangilder (Nov 29, 2007)

To be honest, I still think it was a lucky shot. When I first saw the footage of the downed F-117, I remember seeing the shrapnel holes in the wings were from _above _the aircraft. The holes on the top of the wing had the perforations inward. That tells me that if it was "shot down", it wasn't a perfect hit, but rather a proximity shot in the general vicinity. Plus in the article it said that the pilot ejected when he thought he was being tracked. What happened to evasive action?!?!

Stupid tactics are also partly to blame. They were using almost identical routes, night after night. Hmmm, it doesn't take a particularly clever enemy to figure out your patterns when you repeat them over and over again. Same thing in Somalia. When you become predictable in your tactics, you become a target. If you keep the enemy guessing because they don't know how, from where and when you will striking next, your survivability goes way up.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2007)

Agree Eric - same thing was done in Nam.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 30, 2007)

The anti-icing on the F-22 is bleed air from the engines piped to the leading edges of the wings, like most aircraft today.


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 30, 2007)

plan_D said:


> The anti-icing on the F-22 is bleed air from the engines piped to the leading edges of the wings, like most aircraft today.




Ahhhh...
Is it on all the time then? Are there any heat signature concerns?

.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 30, 2007)

The system is on all the time, yes. It's simply air piped from the compressor (at any stage - probably with options for different stages) and cooled with bypass air in a turbofan engine, or ram-air in a turbojet, in a pre-cooler to bring it down to around 160 - 190 degrees - from the compressor it can be as high as 300 degrees when initially tapped. The air is then simply piped to the wings then dumped overboard. It's a very effective anti-icing system, but the draw-back is that it's drawing energy [power] from the engine. 

The exact same system is used for airliner air conditioning except the air is cooled even further using an air cycle machine that compresses the air (which heats it up), then cools the compressed air, then expands the air over a turbine which brings the temperature right down to about 0 - 2 degrees (the air cycle is the principal of cooling through expansion) and then it's heated and filtered before being piped into the cabin. 

The heat signature of air dumped over-board would be no more of a concern than that of the engine exhaust gas.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Nov 30, 2007)

plan_D said:


> The system is on all the time, yes. It's simply air piped from the compressor (at any stage - probably with options for different stages) and cooled with bypass air in a turbofan engine, or ram-air in a turbojet, in a pre-cooler to bring it down to around 160 - 190 degrees - from the compressor it can be as high as 300 degrees when initially tapped. The air is then simply piped to the wings then dumped overboard. It's a very effective anti-icing system, but the draw-back is that it's drawing energy [power] from the engine.
> 
> The exact same system is used for airliner air conditioning except the air is cooled even further using an air cycle machine that compresses the air (which heats it up), then cools the compressed air, then expands the air over a turbine which brings the temperature right down to about 0 - 2 degrees (the air cycle is the principal of cooling through expansion) and then it's heated and filtered before being piped into the cabin.
> 
> The heat signature of air dumped over-board would be no more of a concern than that of the engine exhaust gas.


Damn D - you must learing something there! 

Also the hot air will more than likely go through a diffuser similar to the "Platypus" exhaust on the F-117.


----------



## comiso90 (Nov 30, 2007)

Thats a lot of engineering when you keep in mind composite materials, and keeping the wing thin.
.


----------



## plan_D (Nov 30, 2007)

Don't be fooled, Joe, that's the only thing I know...


----------



## T4.H (Dec 2, 2007)

T4.H said:


> On such a way the F117 was shot down over yugoslavia.
> One radar system sends the signals, several systems got back the reflected radar signals from the F117.
> By phone they collected the informations from the several radar stations and guided a Mig21 to the target, which at least shot down the F117. Three attacks, two less or more not sucsessful with rockets (which only damaged the F117), at least the Mig shot down the F117 with there guns.
> 
> It's said, that the german airfoce can also connect there radar systems on such a way (Patriot). But of couse, they don't use phones...



I saw the story on TV (German), perhaps two years ago...

The sources...or just only one of it.
Wie der Stealth-Fighter über Jugoslawien abgeschossen wurde
KugelErde.de | KMZ-Datenbank | F117, New Mexiko
Air Aces Homepage

I'm not sure what the truth is.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 2, 2007)

T4.H said:


> I'm not sure what the truth is.



What ever the truth is a MiG-21 didn't shoot the aircraft down.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 2, 2007)

Surely not.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 3, 2007)

The F-117 was shot down by ground fire. 

No NATO aircraft were shot down by enemy aircraft during the whole campaign. All were lost due to accidents or ground fire.

Here is a list of all aircraft destroyed during the NATO Air Campaign over Yugoslavia.

*March 24, 1999:* Yugoslav MiG-29 pilot Nejbojsa Nikolić and nother Mig-29 were shot down by USAF F-15s piloted by Captain Mike Shower and by Lieutenant Colonel Cesar Rodriguez.

*March 25, 1999:* Yugoslav J-22 Orao piloted by Lt. Colonel Zivota Ðurić was shot down by NATO aircraft.

*March 26, 1999:* Yugoslav MiG-29 piloted by Zoran Radosavljević was shot down by a Royal Netherlands Air Force F-16.

On the same day 2 more Mig-29s, one piloted by Lt. Colonel Slobodan Perić were shot down by USAF F-15s piloted by Captain Jeff Hwang.

*March 27, 1999: USAF F-117 was shot down by SA-3 Goa missile fired by 3rd Battalion of the 250th Missile Brigade under the command of Colonel Zoltán Dani. Pilot ejected safely and was rescued.*

*May 2, 1999:* USAF F-16 crashed due to engine failure near Sabac.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2007)

Here's the link showing where the Yugoslavs claimed they shot down a B-2

B2 stealth bomber shot down

"Laughable Propaganda."


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 3, 2007)

I think my 12yo could write a better story.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2007)

agree....


----------



## SoD Stitch (Dec 3, 2007)

Definitely propaganda; the one "clue" that gave it away to me was the fact that they said: "The bombardier’s formation, accompanied by the fighter planes . . . .". The B-2 is never accompanied by fighter planes, especially over enemy territory; this would compromise it's stealthiness, as the only fighter as stealthy as a B-2 is an F-22, and F-22's certainly were not operational in 1999.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 3, 2007)

Really? I thought it was the 101tonnes of ordnance claim.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2007)

And the fact that B-2s were used to bomb hospitals. Those nasty Yankee Sky Pirates!


----------



## T4.H (Dec 3, 2007)

*The source of the pictures:*
jogoslawien 99

Hi Flyboy and everyone else...
Come on...
Just don't believe both sides...
The first, which dies in a war is the truth.
And each war starts with a lie.

I would bet...
If the serbs couldn't proof it, the NATO officials would have said, that all plains would have lost in accidants or because of engine failure. How they also had first said to the shot down F-117 and ... and... etc...

One Harrier ended in the adriatic sea...

This should be a Sea Harrier...
http://www.peters-ada.de/yogo1930.jpg
This could be everything...

Two AH64 were lost in Albania (crews died). (another crashed, crew survived?)
Officialy all three (four) were lost in training flights. Perhaps...
http://www.bmlv.gv.at/pdf_pool/publikationen/05_kk_06_feichtinger.pdf
There are rumors, one of the AH64 has been shot down. I don't belive it...

One F-117 has been shot down.
OK, I saw the pictures, these were shrapnel holes not 23 mm granate holes. No Mig21?
Rocket!...
http://www.peters-ada.de/eintrittsloch.jpg

One another F-117 was badly damaged, get home but was a total loss. 
http://www.pogo.org/m/dp/dp-fa22-Riccioni-03082005.pdf

One A-10 get back heavily damaged.
http://www.peters-ada.de/yogo194.gif
From where did they have the typeshild of a A10? From this one?
http://www.peters-ada.de/yogo211.jpg


On 25. March a F15 has to make a emergancy landing in Sarajevo? Big white smoke? Again only a engine failure? Or has it been hit?
What is this?
http://www.peters-ada.de/yogo1916.gif
A F15 getting rid of fuel?




Are you sure, that the F-16 hasn't shot down? Engine failure?
Air Defense: How to Take Down an F-117
IntelliBriefs: Secrets of 1999 F-117 Shootdown Revealed
http://www.peters-ada.de/yogo1912.jpg

Colonel Dani Zoltan said he shot down the F-117 and the F-16!
USATODAY.com - Serb discusses 1999 downing of stealth
Unconventional Weapon

Several UAV's get lost. Germany lost 6, USA 14. 
France One?
vtd.zept
There is a picture of a shot down french one...I just found it...
Forums: Military Aviation: How to trick Nato (1999 Kosovo)
Seems to be undamaged...and some cool pictures of fake serb tanks and Mig 29 

There are also pictures of several lost german and lost american ones.
http://www.peters-ada.de/yogo1931.jpg
http://www.peters-ada.de/yogo193.jpg
http://www.peters-ada.de/yogo1924.jpg (Hunter)

Also several cruise missle should be shot down...
http://www.peters-ada.de/yogo1928.jpg



*The source of the pictures:*
jogoslawien 99


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2007)

T4.H said:


> Come on...
> 
> Just don't believe both sides...
> The first, which dies in a war is the truth.
> ...



No one is NOT denying that aircraft were not damaged or shot down over Yugoslavia and again no one is denying that a F-117A was shot down as well. What is being totally ridiculed here was the claim that a MiG-21 did the damage and the biggest and laughable claim that a B-2 was shot down as well. The same Yugoslav sources were saying that NATO forces were purposely targeting hospitals and civilian targets. The same people who did a little ole fashioned genocide in their own back yard. More BS propaganda. 

You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see this and it's not a matter of accepting the "party line" from the west.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2007)

> From where did they have the typeshild of a A10? From this one?
> http://www.peters-ada.de/yogo211.jpg



BTW - that's a generic data plate - you could purchase those just about anywhere...

Aircraft Engravers - Data plate - Engraving placards, vinyl lettering, data plates, fuel caps and rocker switches


----------



## T4.H (Dec 3, 2007)

Yes I think you are right.
The F-117 has been shot down by a rocket.
The same with the F16.

Propaganda on both sides I would say.
And lies on both sides.

Do you remember the direct bomb hit on the train? When they tried to destroy a railway bridge? Nice bomb camera view.
First the NATO officials showed a film with a small angle. The train appeared just in the last second...no chance to stop the bomb.
Later on they had to show the real unmodified film. They could see the train for whole flight time of the bomb...
This is propaganda..Or you can call it a lie.
One of many cases on both sides...

Flyboy wrote:
_BTW - that's a generic data plate - you could purchase those just about anywhere..._
Yes of course, you are right!
It is said, they have had some more parts, no source, no pictures found.
In this case I just wanted to ask, if this could be a part of the destroyed jet engine of the A10! 
http://www.peters-ada.de/yogo194.gif



"The first, which dies in a war is the truth."

Hey what do you think of the wooden Mig-29!
cool isn't it?
Forums: Military Aviation: How to trick Nato (1999 Kosovo)
I like them.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2007)

More BS uncovered...



> One A-10 get back heavily damaged.
> http://www.peters-ada.de/yogo194.gif
> From where did they have the typeshild of a A10? From this one?
> http://www.peters-ada.de/yogo211.jpg



If you go to the photo of the A-10 its from the 332nd Air Expeditionary Wing, formed in 2003 - it wasn't even around in 1999. Here's the link...
332nd Air Expeditionary Wing

His photo was probably taken from this article - look at the photos!

Story about Battle Damaged A-10

Note the tail codex's.

I'm sorry but I find it hard believing anything out of Yugoslavia with regards to NATO losses during that period.


----------



## T4.H (Dec 3, 2007)

No, this is not the same aircraft.
The front part of the wing is undamaged (I can not see a hole), the engine is much heavier damaged.
Once the cover panel is blown away, once not.

But you are right, same tail codex.
But my one you can see grass on the airfield.
It seems not to stand on an airfield in the middle of a desert!!!
My source:
jogoslawien 99


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 3, 2007)

The Great Gazoo.


----------



## T4.H (Dec 3, 2007)

Flyboy, yes, I think you are right.
It must be the same aircraft!
Only following units flew following numbers of A-10.

18 A-10 52nd Fighter Wing / 81st Exped Sq 
4 OA-10 20th Fighter Wing 
6 A-10 104th Fighter Wing 
6 A-10 110th Fighter Wing 
6 A-10 124th Fighter Wing 

I feel little bit angry I have to say.


If this is a picture just after landing...
http://www.peters-ada.de/yogo194.gif

They put a cover panel on the right engine.
Story about Battle Damaged A-10


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 3, 2007)

Wars confused with conflicts confused with police actions. T4.H you are mixing pics from multiple campaigns.


----------



## T4.H (Dec 3, 2007)

No no...I don't mix them...
I knew *now*, all these A-10 pictures were from 2003...

I found "my" picture (http://www.peters-ada.de/yogo194.gif) on this side...
jogoslawien 99
It should be from 1999...

It isn't.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 3, 2007)

Sorry. I thought we were talking about the Balkan campaign.


----------



## T4.H (Dec 3, 2007)

Yes, we are talking about the balkan campaign.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2007)

Again I stand by my statements with regards to that conflict.

It was probably to the best interest of the USAF to confirm the loss of a F-117A. That would solidify the need for a next generation strike aircraft - the F-35.

T4.H - there are some of us who have worked and served in the US armed forces - losses of aircraft are pretty hard to conceal during an open conflict, and even if such operations or losses were classified, be rest assured someone would find out.

With that said, the Yugoslavians would of said just about anything to make them look like they were the victims during that conflict.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 3, 2007)

Matt308 said:


> The Great Gazoo.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2007)

T4.H said:


> *The source of the pictures:*
> jogoslawien 99
> 
> Hi Flyboy and everyone else...
> ...



Because they were not shot down by aircraft. Fact is fact. I am not going to believe Serbian propaganda or a Germany news agency that was not in the conflict.



T4 H said:


> Two AH64 were lost in Albania (crews died). (another crashed, crew survived?)
> Officialy all three (four) were lost in training flights. Perhaps...
> http://www.bmlv.gv.at/pdf_pool/publikationen/05_kk_06_feichtinger.pdf
> There are rumors, one of the AH64 has been shot down. I don't belive it...



They were not lost to enemy fire. How do I know 2 of them were from a Germany based unit that my unit deployed with. I have talked with crews that were flying with them when it happened. One of the Apaches hit wires.

A few years later I was flying a Mission with another Apache in the same area and the Apache hit wires and crashed killing both crews.



T4 H said:


> One F-117 has been shot down.
> OK, I saw the pictures, these were shrapnel holes not 23 mm granate holes. No Mig21?
> Rocket!...
> http://www.peters-ada.de/eintrittsloch.jpg



Shrapnel holes can be caused by a Surface to Air Missile. Most Surface to Air missiles do not explode opon contact to the target. They explode in a proximity to the target or in front of it and the shrapnel from the explosion takes the aircraft down.

The SAM unit that shot down the F-117 is known as well as the location of the missile fired and the commander of the unit that fired the missile.

Read the post I made earlier about the subject.

There were several NATO aircraft that were damaged from ground fire and air to air combat but returned to base. Those are not losses.

*There were no USAF aircraft lost in Air to Air combat*


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 4, 2007)

T4.H said:


> Yes I think you are right.
> The F-117 has been shot down by a rocket.
> The same with the F16.



Do you read the other posts or only read what you want to read?

Myself and others have posted that a million times.



T4 H said:


> And lies on both sides.



How?


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 4, 2007)




----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Dec 5, 2007)

It just feels like talking to a brick wall sometimes....


----------



## Eco-81 (Dec 5, 2007)

Back to the original question of stealth characteristics.
The cross section of stealth aircraft is classified, but it is generally believed that they are similar with the F-35 being the lowest.
De-icing can be done by engine bleed air, electrical heating, or by using engine heat to warm fluid that is circulated through tubing in the skin on fighter aircraft, assuming that they even have a system. There are also ice phobic coatings that can be applied to the aircraft. De-icing is typically needed at take-off and landing, and during low altitude flight. There are systems that give icing warnings, so that the pilot can avoid the conditions that cause icing. During high speed flight, skin warming contributes to de-icing. 
A heat signature is like light. Using the right equipment, you can see the thermal trail of a jet (or piston) engine. To track a thermal target, you need an intense source, and the modern aircraft pull cold air in through vents and mix it with the exhaust to cool the stream. Also, a good thermal sensor needs to be extremely cold, and that is usually done by cooling the sensor with a charge of liquid Nitrogen. For an aircraft to continually scan for other aircraft a large supply of this would be needed.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 6, 2007)

The F-22 simply uses engine bleed air.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Dec 6, 2007)

plan_D said:


> The F-22 simply uses engine bleed air.


Yep!


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 11, 2007)

Does it? It could be electric. That would certainly save in weight.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 11, 2007)

Google it.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 11, 2007)

I will not Google until I have exhausted all of the knowledge I have on this subject. Both of them. Thankyou very much.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 12, 2007)

Goooogle it.  

Sorry if that last post seemed abrupt, I was in college and should have been working...for once.


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 12, 2007)

I was joking PD. "Exhausted all knowledge.." and "Both of them". Nevermind. Poor self-depricating humour.


----------



## plan_D (Dec 13, 2007)

I was tired...leave me alone. And on that bomb-shell ... have you googled it yet?


----------



## Matt308 (Dec 14, 2007)

Nope! I trust ya.


----------

