Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II Joint Strike Fighter (JSF)

[Deltafan]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/198270/f_35-“stealth”-coating-wearing-off-faster-than-expected.html

 

[Airplane]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/198270/f_35-“stealth”-coating-wearing-off-faster-than-expected.html

But the F-35s LO was baked into the skin as people here have said.

 

[Sferrin]

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/198270/f_35-“stealth”-coating-wearing-off-faster-than-expected.html

But the F-35s LO was baked into the skin as people here have said.

There is more than one coating I'd think.

 

[SpudmanWP]

Correct, there is more than one layer.

The layer that is baked in is seen as "green" in factory floor pics. This layer has more to do with electrical & heat conductivity.

There are additional layers that are "sprayed" on during the "final finishes" stage that includes the grey paint. It is this outer layer that they are talking about. It is also this layer that is designed to be maintained in the field.

https://www.businessinsider.com/f35-gets-classified-features-2015-5#the-jet-is-placed-in-one-of-two-paint-bays-where-three-laser-guided-robots-are-programmed-to-spray-ram-on-all-surfaces-except-the-tails-and-various-parts-that-are-coated-at-a-separate-area-called-the-robotic-component-finishing-system-4
https://www.f35.com/in-depth/detail/the-finishing-touch-meet-two-engineers-who-specialize-in-stealth
https://ri.cmu.edu/pub_files/2010/3/Seegmiller_SAE-2010_Precision_Robotic_Coating.pdf

 

[Sferrin]

Correct, there is more than one layer.

The layer that is baked in is seen as "green" in factory floor pics.

You sure that's not the primer?

 

[SpudmanWP]

It "may" be a primer applied to on top of the "baked in" coatings.

My point was that there are multiple coatings where the baked in stealth coatings are done prior to assembly and the "final finishes" coatings are done after assembly.

 

[sublight_]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6476697/Coating-makes-RAFs-jets-invisible-enemy-radar-wearing-quicker-expected.html

The source is the daily mail, which is a total rag. Second source?

 

[Deltafan]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6476697/Coating-makes-RAFs-jets-invisible-enemy-radar-wearing-quicker-expected.html

The source is the daily mail, which is a total rag. Second source?

https://www.avionews.com/item/1216943

 

[sublight_]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6476697/Coating-makes-RAFs-jets-invisible-enemy-radar-wearing-quicker-expected.html

The source is the daily mail, which is a total rag. Second source?

https://www.avionews.com/item/1216943

Who is their source?

 

[Deltafan]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6476697/Coating-makes-RAFs-jets-invisible-enemy-radar-wearing-quicker-expected.html

The source is the daily mail, which is a total rag. Second source?

https://www.avionews.com/item/1216943

Who is their source?

Ask them... They have certainly mail addresses where you can contact the Daily Mail and Avionews…

But maybe you can too ask Vice Adm. Mat Winter, the head of the government’s F-35 Joint Program Office or LM Jeff Babione.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/03/06/stealth-features-responsible-for-half-of-f-35-defects-lockheed-program-head-states/

Thanks in advance for all their answers...

 

[LowObservable]

Put it this way: if the maintenance of LO systems was as easy as was promised at contract signature, it would be the first time this has happened.

 

[marauder2048]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6476697/Coating-makes-RAFs-jets-invisible-enemy-radar-wearing-quicker-expected.html

The source is the daily mail, which is a total rag. Second source?

https://www.avionews.com/item/1216943

Who is their source?

But maybe you can too ask Vice Adm. Mat Winter, the head of the government’s F-35 Joint Program Office or LM Jeff Babione.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/03/06/stealth-features-responsible-for-half-of-f-35-defects-lockheed-program-head-states/

Did they actually say anything about coating wear rates?

 

[Airplane]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6476697/Coating-makes-RAFs-jets-invisible-enemy-radar-wearing-quicker-expected.html

The source is the daily mail, which is a total rag. Second source?

https://www.avionews.com/item/1216943

Who is their source?

But maybe you can too ask Vice Adm. Mat Winter, the head of the government’s F-35 Joint Program Office or LM Jeff Babione.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/03/06/stealth-features-responsible-for-half-of-f-35-defects-lockheed-program-head-states/

Did they actually say anything about coating wear rates?

“It’s not a human problem; that’s just the result of our ability. We’re approaching the limits of our ability to build some of these things from precise-enough technology,” a Lockheed Martin spokesman told reporters overnight, admitting the company was having issues with the Low Observable coating.

 

[marauder2048]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6476697/Coating-makes-RAFs-jets-invisible-enemy-radar-wearing-quicker-expected.html

The source is the daily mail, which is a total rag. Second source?

https://www.avionews.com/item/1216943

Who is their source?

But maybe you can too ask Vice Adm. Mat Winter, the head of the government’s F-35 Joint Program Office or LM Jeff Babione.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/03/06/stealth-features-responsible-for-half-of-f-35-defects-lockheed-program-head-states/

Did they actually say anything about coating wear rates?

“It’s not a human problem; that’s just the result of our ability. We’re approaching the limits of our ability to build some of these things from precise-enough technology,” a Lockheed Martin spokesman told reporters overnight, admitting the company was having issues with the Low Observable coating.

Which says nothing about coating wear rates. In the defnews article, he was talking about panel alignment there and
goes on the talk about factory rework; respray and overspray.

 

[Sferrin]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6476697/Coating-makes-RAFs-jets-invisible-enemy-radar-wearing-quicker-expected.html

The source is the daily mail, which is a total rag. Second source?

https://www.avionews.com/item/1216943

Who is their source?

But maybe you can too ask Vice Adm. Mat Winter, the head of the government’s F-35 Joint Program Office or LM Jeff Babione.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/03/06/stealth-features-responsible-for-half-of-f-35-defects-lockheed-program-head-states/

Did they actually say anything about coating wear rates?

“It’s not a human problem; that’s just the result of our ability. We’re approaching the limits of our ability to build some of these things from precise-enough technology,” a Lockheed Martin spokesman told reporters overnight, admitting the company was having issues with the Low Observable coating.

Which says nothing about coating wear rates. In the defnews article, he was talking about panel alignment there and
goes on the talk about factory rework; respray and overspray.

Yep. "Precision" pretty much has nothing to do with painting.

 

[sublight_]

Which is all bizarre because from the onset it was said that the stealth was baked into the skin, and would not need LO "coatings", and the "skin" would get more stealthy from wear.

So the early PR was entirely baloney?

 

[SpudmanWP]

No, it's not "baloney".

There are multiple layers, some baked in and some sprayed on as part of the paint process (obviously necessary).

 

[Airplane]

No, it's not "baloney".

There are multiple layers, some baked in and some sprayed on as part of the paint process (obviously necessary).

Respectfully disagree. Was widely touted that unlike the -22 , its stealth was baked into the skin and not reliant and maintenance heavy coatings. Now we learn if the coating wears off, is damaged, the AC is visible on radar. So what was all that talk about not being able to tell how stealthy something was by looking at its shape? The 35 isn't a stealth shape and electromagnetic physics hasn't changed. It has been fairly obvious to many that the 35 was not a LO AC and they slapped on RAM to cover up the lack of shaping.

 

[kcran567]

How practical as a combat fighter is the F-35 if it is this delicate?
Unless it is operating in ideal situations against an inferior opponent?
Must be kept in sterile conditions and will be maintenance heavy?
That's why I've always liked the practical and realistic Russian philosophy to build durability and for combat (whether out of necessity or other reasons).
All the criticism the Su-57 is getting.

 

[TomS]

Hey, folks. News ONLY, remember.

 

[marauder2048]

GBU-49 + F-35B @ Somewhere in the Arabian Sea.

https://www.dvidshub.net/image/4968026/uss-essex-2018-deployment

 

[Deltafan]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6476697/Coating-makes-RAFs-jets-invisible-enemy-radar-wearing-quicker-expected.html

The source is the daily mail, which is a total rag. Second source?

https://www.avionews.com/item/1216943

Who is their source?

But maybe you can too ask Vice Adm. Mat Winter, the head of the government’s F-35 Joint Program Office or LM Jeff Babione.

https://www.defensenews.com/air/2018/03/06/stealth-features-responsible-for-half-of-f-35-defects-lockheed-program-head-states/

Did they actually say anything about coating wear rates?

You can, at least, ask them from where came the "scratches" (or what is exactly "inadvertently") :

“On the other hand, we inadvertently scratch the coating system, and we have to repaint it. Or when the mechanics spray the airplane [with LO coating], not all of it is robotically sprayed. There’s some overspray, and they have to go clean that,” he said.

This game can last a long time ...


Probably more interesting for F-35 fans (and others...) :

https://sg.news.yahoo.com/dutch-boost-defence-spending-more-f-35-jets-181916744.html

 

[Sferrin]

No, it's not "baloney".

There are multiple layers, some baked in and some sprayed on as part of the paint process (obviously necessary).

Respectfully disagree. Was widely touted that unlike the -22 , its stealth was baked into the skin and not reliant and maintenance heavy coatings.

The F-35s system is FAR more durable than previous systems.

Now we learn if the coating wears off, is damaged, the AC is visible on radar.

ALL aircraft are visible on radar, even a B-2 or F-22. It's a matter of range. It's not as though, if the F-35 gets a scratch in the paint, it goes from being an F-35 to a B-52. This should be obvious.

So what was all that talk about not being able to tell how stealthy something was by looking at its shape? The 35 isn't a stealth shape and electromagnetic physics hasn't changed. It has been fairly obvious to many that the 35 was not a LO AC and they slapped on RAM to cover up the lack of shaping.

Well no, it's been "obvious" to all the keyboard warriors who think you can access an aircraft's RCS by eyeball. You know, the same crowd who were astonished the F-35s RCS is in the same league, or better, than the F-22.

 

[Sferrin]

How practical as a combat fighter is the F-35 if it is this delicate?
Unless it is operating in ideal situations against an inferior opponent?
Must be kept in sterile conditions and will be maintenance heavy?
That's why I've always liked the practical and realistic Russian philosophy to build durability and for combat (whether out of necessity or other reasons).
All the criticism the Su-57 is getting.

Lot's of baseless assumptions there. As for the Su-57 you're starting with an F-35 with no baked in stealth, scratches over it's entire surface, AND poor geometry. I don't see how that makes it a success.

 

[kcran567]

Yes i get the point...

As a previous post suggested, even with multiple scratches the F-35 will not become an B-52 sized radar reflector.

Size and shaping very important as well as coating effectiveness.

Re: size, isn't the F-5/T-38 relatively stealthy based on their small size? So how much "detectable" on radar would an F-35 be with degraded stealth coatings (from wear or weather etc.)-if it would even be an issue? or is that classified?

The Su-57 might not be as "stealthy" as an F-35, but it does improve on earlier designs and is overall much more effort of "Low Observable" in consideration.
The Russians being wary of stealth as the primary driver in design while taking an approach that does not compromise other aspects. The Su-57 being designed as "counter stealth" to aircraft like the F-22/35. Side mounted and beaming techniques etc.

Sorry if straying off F-35 news, am asking in relation to F-35 surface scratches and coatings issues.

 

[kcran567]

...

 

[SpudmanWP]

Respectfully disagree.

That's ok.. I will try and comb through the last 15+ years of memories and dig up the specific references that say "why" there are multiple layers and their importance.

In the meantime, the basics are this:

On the F-22, all stealth layers were sprayed on. They specifically had an issue with the 1st layer that was in direct contact with the skin (metal or composite). IIRC That first layer had a problem with adhesion to the skin. If that layer had an issue, then ALL the layers in the area had to be removed and reapplied, in order, with time in between to dry. This process was obviously was not only time consuming, but also very expensive.

In the F-35 there are basically only two layers, the "baked in" ones that are part of the structure (and cannot thereby "peel off") and the sprayed on "final finish" that also contains the paint and TopCoat®. This "Final Finish" may scratch but does not peel. Even if scratched, the effect is negligible.

Here is a quote from the coatings test center where they basically made a doormat of the stuff, walked on it every day, and it was just fine.

SLD: In entering the facility, I noticed you have a “door mat” of stealth that’s been there for some time. Can you comment on this “door mat?”

Bill Grant: Oh, the slab of stealth? That’s our welcome mat. Yes, we actually have one of the test panels that we use for assessing the stealth of the various materials. It represents a stack-up that’s consistent with the upper surface or the outer surface of the jet. It has the exact same structure and the primer and the topcoat system that you’ll find on the operational jets. And that gets walked upon every time somebody comes in or out of our lab area out there, the repair development center.
Occasionally, we take it up to test to see if there’s any electrical or mechanical degradation to the system and with around 25,000 steps across that system we have not seen any degradation whatsoever. So we have a great deal of confidence, however anecdotal that may be, that we have a very robust system.

The article as a whole is a good read on the F-35's stealth robustness.

https://web.archive.org/web/20150715003916/http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-low-observable-repair-facility-a-unique-asset-for-21st-century-combat-aviation/


One final thing to keep in mind is that there are basically three kinds of "stealth" on the F-35: The baked in and sprayed on coatings, the "rubber" seals around doors that open during normal ops (gear, canopy, weapon bays, etc), and replaceable items like "putty" and "tape" that are used on panels that are opened infrequently (engine swaps, other access panels, etc). The issue that the original claim came from may very well come from one of these other items and have nothing to do with the skin/coatings part of the F-35.

 

[LowObservable]

Let me attempt an explanation, hopefully free of ALL CAPS to show that I am RIGHT and misplaced apostrophe's to demonstrate that your stupid.

Low-observable systems invariably combine many different elements because there are different phenomena in the EM spectrum that can cause detection.

Clearly, you start with shape: avoid 90 degree corners, avoid constant-radius curves aimed at the radar, and align edges and canted surfaces.

All edges have a signature. Point them at a harmless angle or treat with RAM/RAS (wings and tails in particular get RAS). All absorbers are graduated from outside to inside.

Gaps and steps have a signature. Eliminate (for example, with a single-piece skin or continuous coating); align (saw-tooth doors and joints); fill (putties/gaskets).

Surface currents are the mischief. Do not trip them up. Counter-intuitively (to some) the underlying skin must be smoothly conductive, which may require gap and door-edge treatments.

Don't forget IR, although this is usually dealt with by a topcoat, which is not a registered trademark of Lockheed Martin*. (Just make sure the topcoat doesn't goon up the stuff underneath.)

All of this was discussed publicly in the early 90s. It's extremely complex because a problem in one area can affect others. The ballyhooed baked-in elements of the F-35 skin cover only one of the functions of an LO system. They have certainly tried to accomplish many functions over much of the skin with a single hard-setting sprayed-on coat.

If they have achieved near-zero-maintenance LO, good on them. However...

* Maybe the F-35 achieves stealth through the use of auto cleaning products....

 

[SpudmanWP]

hopefully free of ALL CAPS to show that I am RIGHT and misplaced apostrophe's to demonstrate that you're stupid. {FIFY}

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones :

 

[LowObservable]

errrm....

 

[marauder2048]

You can, at least, ask them from where came the "scratches" (or what is exactly "inadvertently")

It's always mechanics as a DCMA definition of damage helpfully illustrates:

"For example, a mechanic was pushing a stand next to the aircraft and scratches the inlet coating."

 

[Dragon029]

Respectfully disagree. Was widely touted that unlike the -22 , its stealth was baked into the skin and not reliant and maintenance heavy coatings. Now we learn if the coating wears off, is damaged, the AC is visible on radar. So what was all that talk about not being able to tell how stealthy something was by looking at its shape? The 35 isn't a stealth shape and electromagnetic physics hasn't changed. It has been fairly obvious to many that the 35 was not a LO AC and they slapped on RAM to cover up the lack of shaping.

It's been my understanding for years that the part of the skin that's "baked in" is the base conductive layer that would typically cause delamination in previous stealth aircraft. The composite may have other (eg: absorption) properties, but there's been multiple videos, etc from Lockheed and partners showing the final RAM coating being sprayed onto the jet using robotic arms. What this means is that while the "baked in" layer won't prevent scratches from impacting the jet's RCS, it will seriously limit the likelihood of issues like this occurring:

http://aviationweek.com/air-combat-safety/us-air-force-tackles-repair-f-22-stealth-coating

....maintainers are tackling an issue with the fleet’s stealth coating that, if left untreated, could cause the radar-evading material to peel off the aircraft. Operators are beginning to see “wrinkles” in the low-observable (LO) coating...

Scratches also apparently shouldn't be that big of a deal; this slide from https://web.archive.org/web/20150727185146/http://www.sldinfo.com/the-f-35-low-observable-repair-facility-a-unique-asset-for-21st-century-combat-aviation/ states that with 40 damage sites, including seal material damage and 6" long gouges / scratches, the F-35 RCS test airframe still met RCS specifications:

 

[LowObservable]

As a matter of good practice, I recommend flagging eight-year-old articles as such. There are a lot of official predictions from that era that turned out to be, to put it as kindly as possible, optimistic.

 

[SpudmanWP]

There is a big difference between old articles that are expressing an opinion or goal and an 8 year old article that talks about an achievement or known & working features.

 

[Deltafan]

You can, at least, ask them from where came the "scratches" (or what is exactly "inadvertently")

It's always mechanics as a DCMA definition of damage helpfully illustrates:

"For example, a mechanic was pushing a stand next to the aircraft and scratches the inlet coating."

US mechanics are not very careful, of course :

But well, the US Congressional Budget Office has "ideas" ( ) to suppress this problem on the next F-35s (and not only) ;D

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cbo-floats-variety-of-cost-cutting-ideas-including-454494/

 

[Sferrin]

You can, at least, ask them from where came the "scratches" (or what is exactly "inadvertently")

It's always mechanics as a DCMA definition of damage helpfully illustrates:

"For example, a mechanic was pushing a stand next to the aircraft and scratches the inlet coating."

US mechanics are not very careful, of course :

But well, the US Congressional Budget Office has "ideas" ( ) to suppress this problem on the next F-35s (and not only) ;D

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/cbo-floats-variety-of-cost-cutting-ideas-including-454494/

"Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II purchases, retiring the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor or Rockwell B-1B Lancer bomber fleets, and deferring development of the Northrop Grumman B-21 stealth bomber."

Well, nobody ever accused them of being intelligent.

 

[Mike Pryce]

Cheap and effective is what is needed.

MiG 28. You know it makes sense.

Even more so now that Maverick is back in a Tomcat!

https://theaviationist.com/2018/12/18/tom-cruise-with-f-14-tomcat-on-snowy-set-in-tahoe-top-gun-escape-scene-filmed/

 

[Sferrin]

Cheap and effective is what is needed.

The two are mutually exclusive.

 

[kaiserd]

When did this thread stop being NEWS ONLY?

Any chance we could control ourselves rather than moderators having to step in and do it for us?

 

[fredymac]

Stennis and Essex joint operations in the Arabian Sea. Hornet/Lightning flybys at the beginning.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGETkMV1oOo