# Was the Mosquito the worlds first stealth aircraft?



## Seawitch (Feb 9, 2008)

Was the Mosquito the worlds first stealth aircraft? I've had it put to me like that a few times, which is why I'm asking.
Much has been made of it's low Radar signature courtesy plywood construction and other things like rubber block suspension and radiators within the wings.
But was this much by accident than design, there were plenty of good wood and canvas aircraft about surely?
Your thoughts?


----------



## syscom3 (Feb 9, 2008)

Those big engines and propellers kind of defeated the concept of "stealth".

Just because an airframe is made of wood, doesn't mean it absorbs radar pulses, or scatters it.


----------



## Erich (Feb 9, 2008)

agreed, the Mossie in any form was never considered stealth a/c


----------



## Seawitch (Feb 9, 2008)

syscom3 said:


> Those big engines and propellers kind of defeated the concept of "stealth".
> 
> Just because an airframe is made of wood, doesn't mean it absorbs radar pulses, or scatters it.


Okay, so _stealth_ is an entirely modern concept/term in aviation?
The Mosquitoes *low* but not absent signature never affected it's being selected for a job?
The V1 was never called a cruise missile because the modern ones hadn't been invented yet, but surely this is what it effectively was?
I bring this up because I wonder if the same circumstance surrounds the Mosquito....the term stealth doesn't seem to have been applied even if thats what it effectively was.
My true thread object is find if there was anything that could be deemed equivalent to the Mosquito.
The Mosquito I gather was drawn up to be an unarmed Bomber...fast enough to stay out of trouble, the same attitude would be applied to the Vulcan years later.
Staying out of trouble requires stealth as well.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2008)

Actually the Mossie did have a very low radar signature and if I remember right needed a special IFF system (transponder) so friendlies could track it on radar - this was more of an accident rather than an intensional design feature so to answer the question, to a degree the Mosquito was the first "Stealth" combat aircraft.


----------



## mhuxt (Feb 9, 2008)

Apparently Galland makes the comment that the Mossie was difficult to track, however what he based that on is unclear.

I really should ask SES over at the Gyges site about the extent to which this was an issue. He's got a separate page on anti-Mosquito ops and ground control:

Home

Control overview at:

Home


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 9, 2008)

Great Info!


----------



## Erich (Feb 9, 2008)

well guys since I am writing a book on night anti-Mossie ops, simply put the Mossie was tracked both intruder and LSNF and recon types, catching the bird was another story, it was NOT stealth


----------



## mhuxt (Feb 9, 2008)

Thanks Erich. I've read a number of accounts, mostly IIRC from the Coastal Strike boys off the Norwegian coast who used to say they could hear a buzzing in their 'phones when they'd been "painted" by German radar - anything to it, do you think?


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 10, 2008)

I disagree that the Mosquito was stealthy but considering the equipment of the day it would've been tougher to paint . The trouble would be painting it with radar the other aircraft would show up a little better but not much . The operator of the radar would be the deciding factor. Adjusting the radar to discriminate between ground clutter, rain , atmospherics birds etc would all come into play.; These were all controlled by the operator if you had a good operator it would be no problem but recall radar was still in its infancy and the operators were on a steep learning curve. I can't recall if the German radar had MTI (moving target indicator) which removed targets that weren't moving or if he had to diseminate all the targets presented . Aspect angle of the radar signal (if the target was sideways or pointed directly at the radar) also plays a huge factor . Those props, radios, engines ,armour plate , seats weapons etc would make it non stealth


----------



## Soren (Feb 10, 2008)

The first truly stealth a/c is the Ho/Go-229 which would've been undetectable by any radar equipment of the time.







Regarding the low radar signature of the Mossie, well I doubt it was much lower than for another a/c of similar size, its not like it was the only a/c with hidden away radiators. The wooden airfram wouldn't have helped much either, esp. since the skin was metal. The a/c with the lowest radar signature in full frontline service by WW2 was probably the Yak-3.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> The first truly stealth a/c is the Ho/Go-229 which would've been undetectable by any radar equipment of the time.


how so? 
What gave it these magical properties that was not attainable by any other aircraft


----------



## Soren (Feb 10, 2008)

You don't know much about how to reduce radar detectability do you ?

Ever wondered why the B-2 is shaped the way it is and why it is todays stealthiest a/c ??

Also read up upon the radar equipment of the day please, it wasn't going to be any good against the Go-229 and that's for sure.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> Regarding the low radar signature of the Mossie, well I doubt it was much lower than for another a/c of similar size, its not like it was the only a/c with hidden away radiators. The wooden airfram wouldn't have helped much either, esp. since the skin was metal. The a/c with the lowest radar signature in full frontline service by WW2 was probably the Yak-3.


But it was a fact - despite the metal items within the Mossie's airframe it still painted a lower radar signature than other aircraft of the day - it seemed the plywood absorbed the radar. There was a recent book called "The First Stealth Fighter: The De Havilland Mosquito" by John Melendez that detailed a lot of the Mosquito's "Stealthiness." 

As far as the Ho/Go-229 - it would of had a lower radar signature for sure, as far as being totally undetectable? It's had to say. Unless the aircraft's surface totally absorbs all the radar or the surface is able to deflect the radar away, it going to paint a signature. Had the -229 been built I don't think the priority of the aircraft would of been to avoid radar.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> You don't know much about how to reduce radar detectability do you ?
> 
> Ever wondered why the B-2 is shaped the way it is and why it is todays stealthiest a/c ??
> 
> Also read up upon the radar equipment of the day please, it wasn't going to be any good against the Go-229 and that's for sure.


Have you ever worked radar? touched it ? Done a lobe check? ad infinitum.... I have for 10 years ..So what your telling me is that just the look will affect radar . .. how the radar is dispersered by the shape of the aircraft was all figured out by the LW . Yeah OK


----------



## Soren (Feb 10, 2008)

It wasn't meant as a stealth fighter Pbfoot, however the shape of the Go-229 would've made its signature on the radars of WW2 the same size as that of a large bird.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> It wasn't meant as a stealth fighter Pbfoot, however the shape of the Go-229 would've made its signature on the radars of WW2 the same size as that of a large bird.


Maybe - the only way to determine that was to actually track the aircraft or test it on a "radar range." No doubt it would of had a very low signature - any flaws on the aircraft's surface would of induced a condition called "radar creep," where radar signals would run up and down any gaps or mismatches on the surface of the aircraft. Let's face it, although Germany produced extremely advanced aircraft toward the end of the war surface aesthetics and "gap and mismatch" took a back set to getting the aircraft operational, especially if said aircraft were built by slave labor.


----------



## Soren (Feb 10, 2008)

I fully agree.

The versions of Go-229 built weren't so by slave labor though, and AFAIK only Bf-109 production to a small extend utilized slave labor within the aeroplane industry. Ammunition and some small arms production plants utilized the most slave labor late in the war.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> I fully agree.
> 
> The versions of Go-229 built weren't so by slave labor though, and AFAIK only Bf-109 production to a small extend utilized slave labor within the aeroplane industry. Ammunition and some small arms production plants utilized the most slave labor late in the war.


Gotcha - 

BTW a signature about the size of a small bird = F-117A. A larger bird = SR71 (with some ECMs working). A very big bird = B1B (with all ECMs working).


----------



## Glider (Feb 10, 2008)

I admit I would be interested to know how the Ho-229 was so stealthy. I am not saying it wasn't but would appreciate some guidance/tips oh how it was achieved.
I can see the shape would help as would the lack of a prop so I can see that it would be less, but invisible, thats asking a lot.


----------



## Seawitch (Feb 10, 2008)

MHuxt...thanks for those links, great reading!
Soren says the Mosquito had a metal skin....I always understood it to have been of the plywood that flyboyJ says may have absorbed radar.
And that much of the strength that sent it modern again was down to the glues used to bond it. 
Soren, are you sure?


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2008)

Glider said:


> I admit I would be interested to know how the Ho-229 was so stealthy. I am not saying it wasn't but would appreciate some guidance/tips oh how it was achieved.
> I can see the shape would help as would the lack of a prop so I can see that it would be less, but invisible, thats asking a lot.


It was a flying wing - just the configuration lends it self to have a low radar signature when radar is painting it from a frontal position. This was noticed on the B-49 as well. I also think the 229 was supposed to use a lot of wood in its primary structure, another stealth plus.


----------



## Soren (Feb 10, 2008)

Seawitch,

Yes I was mistaken about the Mosquito, I can see now that the skin was a type of wood as-well. That's what happens when you rely purely on memory..

I'm thinking now though of how much I wouldn't have liked to have flown in a DH Mossie, I mean a single 20mm HEI projectile hits you and you're a burning torch!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2008)

If there was any metal skin on the Mossie it would of been around the nacelles and maybe the wing leading edges.


----------



## Soren (Feb 10, 2008)

All I can think of now is that it was going *pufff!* if it got hit by any 20mm incendiary round.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> All I can think of now is that it was going *pufff!* if it got hit by any 20mm incendiary round.


I recently seen a clip of one dropping a rolling bomb - it skipped up ant took off it tail - *pufff!* A lot of splinters!


----------



## Seawitch (Feb 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> All I can think of now is that it was going *pufff!* if it got hit by any 20mm incendiary round.


...I think sounds like a Mustang then?
Carrying tons of fuel for Berlin and back missions made it a flying Sherman?


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 10, 2008)

Birds show up on radars so do trees and both are non conductive so what gives the wood in the mossie special properties . It all depends on the aspect of the aircraft to the radar . Yes the Mossie will naturally have a smaller signature then the slab sided bombers. It will also depend on which band radar one is using and most of all power of the radar


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2008)

Seawitch said:


> ...I think sounds like a Mustang then?
> Carrying tons of fuel for Berlin and back missions made it a flying Sherman?


Not necessarily - Protected fuel tanks, etc. - ever see what a bullet does to plywood?


----------



## Seawitch (Feb 10, 2008)

....I wonder if Geese ever got intercepted as the high flying Mosquitoes


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Birds show up on radars so do trees and both are non conductive so what gives the wood in the mossie special properties . It all depends on the aspect of the aircraft to the radar . Yes the Mossie will naturally have a smaller signature then the slab sided bombers. It will also depend on which band radar one is using and most of all power of the radar


All true but plywood (along with balsa and other woods) absorb radar at certain bands. The problem (unknown during WW2) was if there were any imperfections on the surface (seams, cracks, screw heads) they would not absorb the radar.


----------



## Seawitch (Feb 10, 2008)

...Hi Flyboy
Reading your signature...Just to have you stand back I've changed my avatar to a Tern towing a.....RED DUSTER!


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2008)

Seawitch said:


> ...Hi Flyboy
> Reading your signature...Just to have you stand back I've changed my avatar to a Tern towing a.....RED DUSTER!


----------



## davparlr (Feb 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> The first truly stealth a/c is the Ho/Go-229 which would've been undetectable by any radar equipment of the time.



The Ho/Go-229 was not a stealth aircraft. Jet engines are high radar reflective devices with nice rotating radar reflectors. The beams don't even have to hit the compressor or turbine directly to get a good return. They just bounce around the inlet/exhaust until they come out. The Ho/Go-229 may have had reasonable low reflection from the sides but when coming or going, I'd say within plus or minus 45 degrees of the heading, those engines would have lit up a radar set. And, of course, coming or going is what is important. All modern stealth aircraft expend loads of money reducing the radar reflection of the engines. The F-117 has a grid over buried engines and the B-2 has buried engines with sophisticated desined inlets and exhausts. The F-22 and F-35 aslo has very sophiscated inlets and exhausts. There is also the cockpit which would have provided a lot of right angle reflections for a radar to feast on.

Also, the B-2 body design is designed and manufactured to very tight tolerances of curvature and gaps, tolerances that were not available until computer technologies were available to calculate the curvature requirements.

The Ho/Go-229, like the XB-35, was a unknowing step in the right directions, but was billions of dollars and years from becoming a true stealth aircraft.


----------



## antoni (Feb 10, 2008)

The Mosquito's engine cowlings, spinners, radiator skins, underwing panels, tailcone, ailerons, elevators and various access panels were aluminium. The rest was skinned with birch plywood. (The fuselage was made in two halves using a concrete mould to form them.) All wood surfaces were covered with Medapalin, and aviation fabric, applied with red-brown dope. Then it was sprayed with aluminium paint. Finally camouflage was applied over the top of this.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 10, 2008)

Seawitch said:


> ....I wonder if Geese ever got intercepted as the high flying Mosquitoes


geese are aften tracked in the Jetstream if you look at some flight supplements you'll notice they include the migratory patterns of the Canada Goose


----------



## Soren (Feb 10, 2008)

Davparlr,

You must not know allot about the radar equipment of the time. The radars of WW2 weren't going to detect the Go-229, and if they did it would look nothing like an aircraft, just a way too small blob. 

Also jet engines don't give larger radar signatures than a propeller engine. 

In short if you think that the radar of the time was going to detect the Go-229 you seriously lack knowledge on their effectiveness in general.


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> You must not know allot about the radar equipment of the time. The radars of WW2 weren't going to detect the Go-229, and if they did it would look nothing like an aircraft, just a way too small blob.
> 
> ...


Read Davparir's post he is right on .He knows what he is saying


----------



## Soren (Feb 10, 2008)

Nope, Davparlr is thinking of modern radar, not WW2 radar, and there's a BIG difference!


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> Nope, Davparlr is thinking of modern radar, not WW2 radar, and there's a BIG difference!


Whats the difference please enlighten me .


----------



## Soren (Feb 10, 2008)

Are you kidding me ???

Does resolution ring a bell ?


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 10, 2008)

Wow what don't you have an expert opinion on .


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> Davparlr,
> 
> You must not know allot about the radar equipment of the time. The radars of WW2 weren't going to detect the Go-229, and if they did it would look nothing like an aircraft, just a way too small blob.
> 
> ...



A small radar signature - yes. A blob? I doubt it,

Wrong about the jet engines too - even if surrounded by radar absorbing material - in this case wood, the intake and exhaust would show up. The area has to be "diffused" as done on the F-117 and B-2. That technology wasn't even thought of by anyone in WW2.

The Mossie and Go-229 could be considered "stealthy" but no way by intention.

Bottom line, Dave hit the nail on the head....


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 10, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A small radar signature - yes. A blob? I doubt it,
> ....


Never seen a blob on primary radar unless the gains were cranked way up but thats the way a PPI looks on the movies


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 10, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> Never seen a blob on primary radar unless the gains were cranked way up but thats the way a PPI looks on the movies


BINGO!


----------



## pbfoot (Feb 10, 2008)

Soren said:


> I fully agree.
> 
> The versions of Go-229 built weren't so by slave labor though, and AFAIK only Bf-109 production to a small extend utilized slave labor within the aeroplane industry. Ammunition and some small arms production plants utilized the most slave labor late in the war.


and Focke wulf and BMW and Heinkel .
"The named plaintiffs in the suit include Russian born Tatianna Zaitseva and Ukrainian borne Olena Ovechkina, both of who are now permanent United States residents. Zaitseva and her mother, a physician, were transported by the Nazis to Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau, a subsidiary of Daimler-Benz, where they were forced to work as slave-labors for nearly four years"

Eastern European Survivors of German Slave Labor File Class Action Against Industry Giants; Suit Targets Daimler Chrysler, BMW, Bayer Others for Wartime Use of Slave Labor | Business Wire | Find Articles at BNET.com


----------



## Soren (Feb 11, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> A small radar signature - yes. A blob? I doubt it,
> 
> Wrong about the jet engines too - even if surrounded by radar absorbing material - in this case wood, the intake and exhaust would show up. The area has to be "diffused" as done on the F-117 and B-2. That technology wasn't even thought of by anyone in WW2.
> 
> ...



I disagree as he makes it sound like jet engines give higher radar signatures than propeller engines.

I never claimed that the jet engines wouldn't deflect the radar waves and give away a signature, only that it wouldn't show as big a signature as a propeller engine. Also the very shape of the Go-229 would make sure that the Allied radar equipment of the time wouldn't be able to distinguish it from a large bird. The jet engines are the only good wave deflectors on the Go-229.


----------



## Soren (Feb 11, 2008)

pbfoot said:


> and Focke wulf and BMW and Heinkel .
> "The named plaintiffs in the suit include Russian born Tatianna Zaitseva and Ukrainian borne Olena Ovechkina, both of who are now permanent United States residents. Zaitseva and her mother, a physician, were transported by the Nazis to Focke-Wulf Flugzeugbau, a subsidiary of Daimler-Benz, where they were forced to work as slave-labors for nearly four years"
> 
> Eastern European Survivors of German Slave Labor File Class Action Against Industry Giants; Suit Targets Daimler Chrysler, BMW, Bayer Others for Wartime Use of Slave Labor | Business Wire | Find Articles at BNET.com



Great little google search, only problem is that's a law suit Pbfoot.

I know BMW used slave labor to some extent, but still it wasn't in a very significant fashion and not within the aero industry. Focke Wulf didn't use any slave labor for a/c production, however it did use a few for the production of some simple parts which didn't demand any expertize to manufacture.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2008)

Soren said:


> I disagree as he makes it sound like jet engines give higher radar signatures than propeller engines.


Believe it or not, depending the way they are configured within the structure, a jet engine could give a HIGHER signature than a recip. The only way to accurately determine is to place an aircraft on a radar test range. This is what one would look like








Soren said:


> I never claimed that the jet engines wouldn't deflect the radar waves and give away a signature, only that it wouldn't show as big a signature as a propeller engine.





Soren said:


> Also the very shape of the Go-229 would make sure that the Allied radar equipment of the time wouldn't be able to distinguish it from a large bird.


Again, there would be no way to determine that... 


Soren said:


> The jet engines are the only good wave deflectors on the Go-229.



See first response.


----------



## Soren (Feb 11, 2008)

The way the Go-229's engines are configured into the airframe means a lower signature than that given away from a piston engined fighter. The frontal area of the Go-229's engines is also allot smaller than that presented by a propeller.

And as to the shape, well flying wings have smaller radar signatures than regular a/c.


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2008)

Soren said:


> The way the Go-229's engines are configured into the airframe means a lower signature than that given away from a piston engined fighter. The frontal area of the Go-229's engines is also allot smaller than that presented by a propeller.


To a point - unless the intakes are diffused the compressor or turbine (if painted from the rear) is going to show up, and the signature will be very large.


Soren said:


> And as to the shape, well flying wings have smaller radar signatures than regular a/c.


Agree....


----------



## davparlr (Feb 11, 2008)

Unless you test the shape, or do a statistical analysis, you can only guess about the RCS with a low probability of being anywhere accurate. Without this data, declaring a design as stealty is not valid. Unless one knows the tested RCS of the Go-229, one really knows nothing. Also, unless you know the performance of 1945-46 Allied radar in range vs. RCS, you also don't anything about its performance against that threat.

Soren, Where did you come up with the comment that jet engines have a less RCS than a piston plane? It certainly can't be area or size, since that really has little to do with RCS (RCS reflectors used in test and decoys can be very small but emit a very nice signature, the very small Quail duplicated the huge B-52). RCS is an extremely complex concept and is certainly difficult to generalize.


----------



## JoeB (Feb 11, 2008)

A missing piece here (seems to be, unless it's way back in the thread, sorry to repeat if so) the power relationship between target radar cross section (RCS) and detection range for a given radar. The detection range varies as the fourth power of the RCS. IOW halving the RCS cuts detection range by only 15%; you need a 99% reduction in RCS to cut detection range by 68%, 99.99% to cut it 90%. You just can't get that kind of reduction by accident of simple choice of material (and in only part of the plane!) or of general shape. As was said, just a screw head sticking out a little somewhere could ruin a really meaningful reduction in detection range, and the computational and testing tools for true VLO design didn't exist. Even when the F-117 was designed those tools were cruder than when B-2 and F-22 were.

A similar thing comes up sometimes comparing modern basically non-LO planes with *some* low observables design mods and treatment (for example F-18E/F's, EurofighterTyphoon, B-1B v B-1A etc) with real VLO planes. The signature is very signficantly reduced in the treated/partially redesigned planes compared to other conventional planes, but not enough to radically reduce detection range. It's a modest reduction in *detection range*, for modest cost. There's no easy way to real stealth now either.

As for WWII and modern radars, the basic physical principals haven't changed. One reason many radars in WWII had low resolution is they operated on low frequencies, eg. the gigantic British 'Chain Home' early warning arrays that operated in HF>bottom of VHF band. Such radars are actually less susceptible to VLO measures in principal, because they only 'see' *any* plane as a vague disturbance across a few wavelengths. The specific shape or reflectivity of the materials in the wing or fuselage makes less difference at those frequencies; those measures mainly affect higher frequency radars. Efforts to detect the presence of modern VLO planes, if not track them accurately enough to engage, are often based on reverting to lower frequencies (but no free lunch: big, immobile, vulnerable, low resolution radars).

WWII fire control radars OTOH were directing weapons, AA guns, with very short ranges by today's stds. Within the few mile practical range of a Flak 88 even a modern VLO a/c might be detected by a Wurzburg fire control radar (again the 4th power law). Wooden contruction alone wouldn't make a plane invisible to such a radar within the small effective envelope of the weapon it was directing. 

The modern VLO's advantage is in the modern situation, where radars and weapons systems require *precise* targeting at relatively *long range* (as of a SAM or radar AAM) in order to cope with a plane effectively: effective VLO design and tactics will respectively deny that long range capability, and avoid coming close enough to lose the advantage, but if they do come close enough they will lose it. The WWII situation was different and the range reduction just from accidental choice of material or basic shape would be much less. It's questionable IMO whether wooden construction or general flying wing arrangement would make an appreciable difference in effectiveness of radars, in the WWII situation. I think some TV and written accounts that suggest otherwise are overlooking some basic facts.

Joe


----------



## FLYBOYJ (Feb 11, 2008)

Great info guys - and again I repeat...

The Mossie and Go-229 could be considered "stealthy" but no way by intention.


----------



## Seawitch (Feb 11, 2008)

Much is being made of the GO-229, or Horton.
I've only just discovered it existed thanks to this thread, but did recognise it as something seen in a signature on here.
I've been away to read about that.(wikapedia)s Only one prototype was built and flew just two hours. That won't be news to people talking about it I'm sure.
But it certainly wasn't built with stealth in mind, but range....to meet a '1000, 1000, 1000' range, payload and speed requirement by Goring.
I can't say it's the equivalent to a Mosquito I wondered might exist....does anybody have an idea about that?


----------



## delcyros (Feb 12, 2008)

...according to Dr. Reimar Hortens account on his Ho-IX / Go-229, it was intentionally layouted with design, plywood surfaces and some kind of special paint to have a lower radar signature. One of the purposes was as an attack bomber, another was as a nightfighter where even marginal improvements come in handy.

However, Horten wrote his account in the 60´s, I believe. It is the main source for claiming the Ho-IX was kind of an stealth plane.


----------



## Soren (Feb 12, 2008)

Yes, the Go-229 was meant to be covered with RAM. The prototypes weren't however because of the budget cuts.


----------



## Seawitch (Feb 12, 2008)

Germany was dabbling with a rubber coated submarine to overcome Sonar, I'll see if I can find more out.
I thought that would be difficult... 
Anti sonar coat for U boats


----------



## delcyros (Feb 12, 2008)

The usual snorkel coat was not anti sonar but anti - radar. 
The rubber coating is employed on the snorkel, the only part of the boat to be surfaced when recharging the Diesels. It doesn´t make sense as an anti-sonar suite for surfaced parts while the rest of the submerged body (=HUGE reflection area) is not covered by this suite. It does, however, come in handy against anti submarine patrol airplanes and their airborne decimetric radarset...
Only full hull treatments had any effect on sonars but it is not known how many boats received this.


----------



## davparlr (Feb 12, 2008)

FLYBOYJ said:


> Great info guys - and again I repeat...
> 
> The Mossie and Go-229 could be considered "stealthy" but no way by intention.



I still have to disagree. Without really knowing the tested or analized RCS, we cannot say whether they are stealty. Materials, shapes, RAM, all have to be applied properly to be effective. For the Stealth of today, lots of dollars, big brains, and very large computer programs were required to reduce RCS by orders of magnitude in order impact even crude radars, as was very capably explained by JoeB. You would be surprised by the relatively small reduction in detection range of the B1B compared to the orders of magitude larger RCS of the B-52.


----------



## Seawitch (Feb 12, 2008)

delcyros said:


> The usual snorkel coat was not anti sonar but anti - radar.


Hi delycos
Agreed, but what's your point? I never mentioned the topic of rubber coated snorkels , but rubber coated sbmarines...so anti sonar.
A rubber coated snorkel wouldn't be difficult to envisage or create, a rubber coated sub something else!


----------



## davparlr (Feb 12, 2008)

JoeB said:


> A missing piece here (seems to be, unless it's way back in the thread, sorry to repeat if so) the power relationship between target radar cross section (RCS) and detection range for a given radar. The detection range varies as the fourth power of the RCS. IOW halving the RCS cuts detection range by only 15%; you need a 99% reduction in RCS to cut detection range by 68%, 99.99% to cut it 90%. You just can't get that kind of reduction by accident of simple choice of material (and in only part of the plane!) or of general shape. As was said, just a screw head sticking out a little somewhere could ruin a really meaningful reduction in detection range, and the computational and testing tools for true VLO design didn't exist. Even when the F-117 was designed those tools were cruder than when B-2 and F-22 were.
> 
> 
> Joe



Joe, very impressive discussion on radar detection. Have you worked on any radar development programs? In my last four years at Northrop Grumman I was fortunate to work on the Multipurpose Radar Technology Program, MP-RTIP. I was not a radar guru by any means. My expertise was really in Controls and Displays but on MP-RTIP I worked the systems integration. We were teamed with Northrop Gurmman Radar (old Westinghouse) and Raytheon (old Hughes). As primary systems integration, our primary job was to get our two radar teams to work together (they were archenemies). It was certainly a pleasure to work with some of the greatest radar talent in the world.

Here are a couple of site on MP-RTIP, if you are interested.

http://www.es.northropgrumman.com/ASD/brochures/airborne/MP-RTIP.pdf

Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program


----------



## delcyros (Feb 14, 2008)

Seawitch said:


> Hi delycos
> Agreed, but what's your point? I never mentioned the topic of rubber coated snorkels , but rubber coated sbmarines...so anti sonar.
> A rubber coated snorkel wouldn't be difficult to envisage or create, a rubber coated sub something else!



Sorry seawitch, I didn´t adressed You but the referred webpage. The picture shows an AR-covered snorkel but was placed in the Alberich text. It actually belongs to the lower "Tarnmatte" text.

best regards,


----------



## Glider (Feb 14, 2008)

Seawitch
The anti sonar coating that I think you are referring to was tried a number of times by the Germans during the war. In the end it was only put on around 10 submarines ranging from a type II boat to a Type XXI in a period from 1940 to 1945.

The main problem with it was that it used to peel off at sea and flap. This caused a fair amount of noise and also slowed the submarine down.


----------



## eddie_brunette (Feb 14, 2008)

what about the ME163? just wondering what its radar sig would have been, especially the glider


----------



## davparlr (Feb 14, 2008)

eddie_brunette said:


> what about the ME163? just wondering what its radar sig would have been, especially the glider


Just looking at it in simplistic manner, it appears to be much cleaner than any other WWII aircraft with no inlets and very small exhaust and blended design. However, without understanding the radar beam interaction with the curvature of the aircraft and other aspects, one cannot say for certain what an aircraft is capable of in regards to avoiding detection.


----------



## Elvis (Feb 17, 2008)

Seawitch said:


> Was the Mosquito the worlds first stealth aircraft? I've had it put to me like that a few times, which is why I'm asking.
> Much has been made of it's low Radar signature courtesy plywood construction and other things like rubber block suspension and radiators within the wings.
> But was this much by accident than design, there were plenty of good wood and canvas aircraft about surely?
> Your thoughts?


If not the first, probably one of the first.
However, I do remember hearing about a French plane during the first world war that used a transparent "eisenglass" like material to cover the frame...thus, at altitude, it seemed "invisible".
Along with the Mossy, the russians had a bi-plane (Polikarpov PO-2) that they used with great efficiency around that time, that also relied on a bit of "stealth" technology...or rather, Stealth _tactics_.
There was a famous squadron consisting of female pilots known as "The Night Witches", which performed night time bombing raids on the invading germans.
What they did was fly in slow (because it wasn't exactly a _fast_ airplane), then as they approached the target, they shut their engines off and would glide the planes in.
This allowed them to get close to the target, drop their bombs, then restart the engines and leave.
From what I understand, the Gerry's were always caught off guard.

Here's a link that discusses The Night Witches



Elvis


----------



## Graeme (Feb 17, 2008)

Elvis said:


> However, I do remember hearing about a French plane during the first world war that used a transparent "eisenglass" like material to cover the frame...thus, at altitude, it seemed "invisible".



I don't know of the French aircraft, but the Germans produced the 'transparent' Cellon covered Linke-Hofmann R I of 1917 which was suppose to be invisible, but wasn't.





Stealth of a different kind(?) Lockheed's QT-2/X-26/YO-3 series of 'quiet' reconnaissance aircraft. Said to_ "make a gentle rustling sound, like leaves in a slight breeze at a height of 400ft, and almost impossible to detect at 800ft_."


----------

