# Best Stealth Aircraft



## Desert Fox (Aug 3, 2008)

There have been few stealth aircraft in service so far, but which has been the best?

Edit: I've got one too many 1's on the Nighthawk  embarrassing


----------



## ScOoTeR1992 (Aug 3, 2008)

this will get interesting. Uhm is this poll rating A/C that were and in current service. is there any reason why you left out the YF-23 because that bird is pretty stealthy because i'm just wondering


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 3, 2008)

F-35!


----------



## <simon> (Aug 3, 2008)

Is the F-35 very stealthy though??

Is is an amazing aircraft and carries the best technology in the world but i didn't think it was particuly stealthy, especially when compared to these other aircraft.

The Raptor is awesome but i had to give it to the Blackbird

Good quiz though!


----------



## comiso90 (Aug 3, 2008)

More stealthy than the SR-71!


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2008)

Um Desert Fox correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe the SR-71 was ever really a stealth aircraft.


----------



## <simon> (Aug 3, 2008)

Didn't it have radar absorbent paint? I thought i was designed to be a high altitude stealth recce aircraft.

Thats interesting

What d'you reckon was the best Adler?


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2008)

Probably the F-22, but honestly I don't know.


----------



## marshall (Aug 3, 2008)

About the SR-71, some features on the plane were designed to reduce its radar signature but the plane wasn't stealth, it could be seen from hundreds of miles on the air traffic control radar.


I'm not that smart, here's the link:
SR-71 Blackbird - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 3, 2008)

marshall said:


> About the SR-71, some features on the plane were designed to reduce its radar signature but the plane wasn't stealth, it could be seen from hundreds of miles on the air traffic control radar.
> 
> 
> I'm not that smart, here's the link:
> SR-71 Blackbird - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Exactly. It was not a stealth aircraft.


----------



## ToughOmbre (Aug 3, 2008)

The SR-71 was observed many times by the USSR, in fact over 1,000 SAMs were fired at the Blackbird during her career.

Speed and altitude, not stealth, made the SR-71 untouchable.

TO


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 3, 2008)

HO-229, because it started the whole thing....


----------



## B-17engineer (Aug 3, 2008)

I am going with B2


----------



## yardbird78 (Aug 3, 2008)

Granted, the SR-71 was not even close to 100% stealthy, but it was one of the earliest attempts at that objective. It's RCS was amazingly low for such a large aircraft. The physical shape plus the ironball paint plus ECM made it impossible to determine the exact position, altitude, course and speed of the SR-71. The bad guys knew it was flying over their area, but had to guess at those four parameters, thus it became an unsolveable problem to aim a missile at the correct point in space to shoot it down. Once a SAM is launched, there is a relatively small area of space where it can reach. The SR-71 pilot/RSO determined where the missile was headed and if necessary, just turned away from that space. It requires something like a minute for the SA-2 to reach 80,000 feet. The SR-71 travels 30 miles in that minute, which means the missile had to be aimed 30 miles in front of the airplane. That gives the crew quite a bit of time and space to avoid the missile.

If the vote is for "stealthiest" aircraft, then the SR-71 is definately not the winner. If the vote is for ability to penetrate bad guy airspace with the least chance of getting shot down, the SR-71 wins.

Darwin, 12 year veteran of the Blackbird program


----------



## Gnomey (Aug 3, 2008)

Very true Darwin.

In the context of the poll I voted for the F-22 although I would say that had the F-35 being up there it would of got my vote.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 3, 2008)

It is hard to know what is meant by "best"-- best in what context-- but I chose the F-22 as being most able to both dish it out and take it in an adaptable, versatile combat format. The SR-71 and B-2 need special facilities and extra special care, and the B-2 and F-117 are subsonic sitting ducks if anyone ever did manage to draw a bead on them. While that may be unlikely to ever happen, just consider the possibilities.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2008)

Oreo said:


> and the B-2 and F-117 are subsonic sitting ducks if anyone ever did manage to draw a bead on them.


Drumroll............WRONG!

Do you realize how fast is 600 knots really is, especially on the deck? In a blink of an eye a modern jet will blow right by and you'll never notice it except for maybe the noise or the ordinance exploding. Most combat sorties (air to ground) are actually done at subsonic speeds.

The B-2 has even a "visual" low profile when viewed from the front or rear and drawing a "bead" on one is still very difficult if not impossible, especially at night.

As far as the F-117A - although one was lost in combat, if you look at its operational history and combat missions flown, it actually been the most successful true stealth aircraft in service. The only reason why its been retired is too make room for the F-22 and F-35 budget-wise


----------



## solo (Aug 3, 2008)

Hard to decide.....I go for F-22 but....F-35 is quite interesting.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 3, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Drumroll............WRONG!
> 
> Do you realize how fast is 600 knots really is, especially on the deck? In a blink of an eye a modern jet will blow right by and you'll never notice it except for maybe the noise or the ordinance exploding. Most combat sorties (air to ground) are actually done at subsonic speeds.
> 
> ...



I wasn't talking about ground to air. I mean an F-86 could blow them out of the air on a bad day. Night? If your plane has to fly at night to be safe then it's not as good as an F-22. That's all I'm saying.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 3, 2008)

Oreo said:


> I wasn't talking about ground to air. I mean an F-86 could blow them out of the air on a bad day. Night? If your plane has to fly at night to be safe then it's not as good as an F-22. That's all I'm saying.


Wrong on both points again my friend - I worked on F-86s AND F-117s and the F-117 was very maneuvarable and had great acceleration when its ordinance was unloaded. - In a scenario as you say the Saber would have to go visual as it radar computing site would be useless. More than likely an F-117 would accelerate away from a Saber.

The 117's whole design concept was to be operated at night so there was little visual and no radar tracking available. The F-117 also was never intended to be operated as a fighter and based on it's sortie to loss ratio since its introduction it was probably the best strike aircraft to ever fly with regards to safety and effectiveness.

The F-22? Different story - 2nd generation stealth and it was designed as an air to air fighter.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 3, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Wrong on both points again my friend - I worked on F-86s AND F-117s and the F-117 was very maneuvarable and had great acceleration when its ordinance was unloaded. - In a scenario as you say the Saber would have to go visual as it radar computing site would be useless. More than likely an F-117 would accelerate away from a Saber.
> 
> The 117's whole design concept was to be operated at night so there was little visual and no radar tracking available. The F-117 also was never intended to be operated as a fighter and based on it's sortie to loss ratio since its introduction it was probably the best strike aircraft to ever fly with regards to safety and effectiveness.
> 
> The F-22? Different story - 2nd generation stealth and it was designed as an air to air fighter.



Well I'm only trying to say the F-22 is better, and why, since the poll was rather vague as to the reason we thought one or another was the best. Since you've had personal experience a lot closer than I have, I'm glad you're able to shed some light on such things. I'm not just trying to pick fights or anything. We armchair generals have to have opinions too!


----------



## machine shop tom (Aug 3, 2008)

I vote for the plane that is the stealthiest yet. However, I cannot give a name or number for it because it hasn't been released yet. Or seen and identified....


----------



## Oreo (Aug 4, 2008)

machine shop tom said:


> I vote for the plane that is the stealthiest yet. However, I cannot give a name or number for it because it hasn't been released yet. Or seen and identified....



Noice!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 4, 2008)

Oreo said:


> Well I'm only trying to say the F-22 is better, and why, since the poll was rather vague as to the reason we thought one or another was the best. Since you've had personal experience a lot closer than I have, I'm glad you're able to shed some light on such things. I'm not just trying to pick fights or anything. We armchair generals have to have opinions too!


No worries - just telling you from my perspective - and yes the F-22 is way more stealthy.


----------



## marshall (Aug 4, 2008)

yardbird78 said:


> Granted, the SR-71 was not even close to 100% stealthy, but it was one of the earliest attempts at that objective. It's RCS was amazingly low for such a large aircraft. The physical shape plus the ironball paint plus ECM made it impossible to determine the exact position, altitude, course and speed of the SR-71. The bad guys knew it was flying over their area, but had to guess at those four parameters, thus it became an unsolveable problem to aim a missile at the correct point in space to shoot it down. Once a SAM is launched, there is a relatively small area of space where it can reach. The SR-71 pilot/RSO determined where the missile was headed and if necessary, just turned away from that space. It requires something like a minute for the SA-2 to reach 80,000 feet. The SR-71 travels 30 miles in that minute, which means the missile had to be aimed 30 miles in front of the airplane. That gives the crew quite a bit of time and space to avoid the missile.
> 
> If the vote is for "stealthiest" aircraft, then the SR-71 is definately not the winner. If the vote is for ability to penetrate bad guy airspace with the least chance of getting shot down, the SR-71 wins.
> 
> Darwin, 12 year veteran of the Blackbird program





Darwin may I know how exactly you were involved in Blackbird program?


----------



## SoD Stitch (Aug 4, 2008)

yardbird78 said:


> The physical shape plus the ironball paint plus ECM made it impossible to determine the exact position, altitude, course and speed of the SR-71.



There were several features which made the -71 "stealthy" (compared to other '60's-era a/c, anyway); the inward-canted fins, ceramic "wedges" along the leading edges of the wings (if you look closely in pictures, you can see the outline of the wedges), and the chines along the nose, all contributed to a lower RCS, especially for a plane it's size. The original reason for the chines along the nose was for stability at high Mach, but it had the added benefit of decreasing the RCS of the -71.


----------



## fly boy (Aug 4, 2008)

i have a friend whose dad works on the f-22 and he talks about it alot so i go with the raptor


----------



## davparlr (Aug 6, 2008)

From a pure stealth standpoint, I think the F-22 and B-2 are similar. I think the B-2 is probably stealther than the F-22 in a 360 degree profile, high and low. Next would be the F-117 and F-35. The SR-71 was designed for speed, not stealth. Stealth was a secondary consideration, same to, the B-1B.


----------



## marshall (Aug 6, 2008)

What do you guys think about this?









"Estimates range detection of various types of aircraft by radio station on charges of typical wavelengths." - transleted by "google translate" and I'm not quite sure is this statement have any sense after translation but you will probably know what's shown on the image.

Source: Zmniejszenie wykrywalno¶ci samolotu - Militaria - Lotnictwo - Konflikty Zbrojne


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 6, 2008)

davparlr said:


> From a pure stealth standpoint, I think the F-22 and B-2 are similar. I think the B-2 is probably stealther than the F-22 in a 360 degree profile, high and low. Next would be the F-117 and F-35. The SR-71 was designed for speed, not stealth. Stealth was a secondary consideration, same to, the B-1B.



For the record, speed was the primary requirement for the B-1A. Stealth secondary.

For the B-1B, stealth was primary and speed secondary. Thus, the B-1B contains inlet baffles that limits its speed almost 600mph slower at Vmax.

Between Carter (cough, cough, eff u) and Reagan (Ronaldus Maximus) the mission profile of the B-1 changed night and day.


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 6, 2008)

marshall said:


> What do you guys think about this?



Not much


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Aug 6, 2008)

marshall said:


> What do you guys think about this?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



That's very dated info.....


----------



## Matt308 (Aug 6, 2008)

...and technically meaningless other than for general discussion.

What must be realized about stealth, is that it is not just an airframe application. True stealth maximizes airframe EM energy absorption/reflection capability with, IR emmision reduction, acoustic energy reduction, visible reference reduction, best operational profiles, ability to dissimenate target/threat information discretely and securely to local assets, jamming, spoofing, and defensive data manipulation.

Stealth is no longer a single dimension.


----------



## Oreo (Aug 7, 2008)

Matt308 said:


> Stealth is no longer a single dimension.



That's true, and that's part of what makes this discussion so hard to handle. Plus, trying to factor the "stealth" aspect of a plane in with the other aspects of the same plane to get the "best stealth aircraft."


----------



## marshall (Aug 7, 2008)

I agree with you about that graph but eventually to this day it's normal that you will find something like this in a popular publication about stealth.


----------



## <simon> (Aug 8, 2008)

Interesting that the F-117 has no votes at all.

Isn't stealth its primary means of 'defence'??


----------



## Desert Fox (Aug 9, 2008)

Sorry everyone, I've had no internet access for quite a while, just got it back. In response to questions:
a) I didn't put F-35 up because it hasn't seen active service yet
b) SR-71 was put up because it was one of the first attempts at a stealth aircraft, even though it was not fully stealth like some of the others on the poll
c) 'Best' means what you believe to be the stealthiest of all the aircraft on the poll

I would have thought the F-117 would get more votes, although I am going with the F-22 on this one


----------



## trackend (Aug 9, 2008)

This is a subject I know very little of. so voting is not for me.
Surly if how effective (or ineffective) stealth is becomes common knowledge
would not this comprimise its concept 
As most of the real information is cloaked in secrecy is not any vote on this subject just a guess.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Aug 9, 2008)

Desert Fox said:


> Sorry everyone, I've had no internet access for quite a while, just got it back. In response to questions:
> a) I didn't put F-35 up because it hasn't seen active service yet
> b) SR-71 was put up because it was one of the first attempts at a stealth aircraft, even though it was not fully stealth like some of the others on the poll
> c) 'Best' means what you believe to be the stealthiest of all the aircraft on the poll
> ...



That is the thing though. SR-71 was not an attempt at a Stealth Aircraft. Yes it had some stealth qualities such as radar absorbing paint, but the idea behind the SR-71 was to fly high and fast, where no oposition could reach you.

The Soviets knew where she was at all times when she was in or over there territory.


----------



## Lucky13 (Aug 10, 2008)

Soon enough, fighters etc, will be that much stealth that we'll back to square one, fighting with guns and cannons, because missiles will be useless....


----------

