Impact of Eurofighters in the Middle East

But advanced camouflage is. Once again, read up in it.

I'd be more interested in a demonstration. Which Raptors is this
"advanced camouflage" flying on?


I think what he's referring to is one of two things. (Keeping in mind
I'm not in the industry and all I've read is what's been made public
and what I can see with my own eyes). The first is I've read that
the paint scheme is designed to make it difficult for IR seekers that
look for edges to find them. The second (and this is just something
I've noticed) is that haven't you ever noticed the paint on the F-22
just looks. .. strange? In many pictures it almost looks like bare
metal. I've been looking through a bunch of pictures and Raptor 01
was painted with "normal" paint and the rest appear to be painted with
the other kind. I'm not saying just because it's different that it's
something special or anything BUTthere is definitely something unusual
about it. First of all it's reflective unlike the paint on other
fighters (and yeah I know everything relfects which is why we can see
it- that's not what I'm talking about.) It's not like glossy paint
reflective but more like burnished metal reflective. Secondly,
unless they frequently repaint Raptor 002 it *appears* to do something
funny when it comes to color. I'm not saying it actively matches it's
surroundings. But maybe it has an affinity for picking up the color
of the light that hits it. Who knows? I've posted several photos of
002 in various lighting conditions to show what I mean. In photo one
you could almost convince yourself the far vertical stab is made of
glass and you can see through it. Pictures 1 and 8 show what I'm
talking about to best effect. Pictures 5,6,7 show it flying with
Raptor 01 which has *normal* paint. Now I'm not one to think the
Raptor is made of parts from Roswell or anything like that, I've just
noticed that the paint seems unusual. Or am I on crack?


http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/1.jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/2.jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/3_(002_is_in_rear).jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/4.jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/5(01_is_in_rear).jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/6(01_is_in_rear).jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/7(01_is_in_rear).jpg

http://www.xmission.com/~sferrin/8(This_one_is_006).jpg


(for some reason that "(" is causing the whole name not to show in the
link. Just do a copy past into your browser)




You might want to double-check that: those engines not only have
vectoring thrust but afterburners. That's getting to be a _real_
challenge to build effective IR suppression into.

Part of it is their cross-section and that ^ poking to the rear will
cause the exhaust to mix with the surrounding air quicker. Which
isn't to say it would be invisible but that it would dissipate quicker
than a convenctional round nozzle.






Dish. Aerial. Antenna. Plate. That emitter-thingy gizmo in the pointy
end. (That blasts out kilowatts of coherent microwaves)

And there are some very nice ways to make antennas to lower that sort of
problem. Remembering, of course, that the US has been working on such
tech since the Carter administration (and succeeding quite nicely, from
the results we see in the Nighthawk and B-2).


Not to mention radomes that are transparent at only certain
frequencies. That with the LPI and low side lobes of an AESA radar
go a long ways toward making it more difficult to detect.


(after that it was difficult to follow who said what :-) )