Which is more stealthy? F117A or F22?

Topics says it. Which is “less visible” to Radar and other detection techniques out of the two?

I know WAGs are a bad thing in GQ, but I’ll at least toss this into the discussion.

I’ll go with the Raptor, simply because it’s newer technology. I would imagine that in advances in technology has started to reduce the stealth effectiveness in the Nighthawk. Technology has done some serious evolution since the F117 was developed.

Of course the 117 could have been a great design that stands the test of time (relatively of course), so I’ll leave it at that, and let more knowledgable dopers shed some light on the subject.

Of course, there’s a point where the radar cross-section reaches a point where getting it smaller is more a matter of pride than of necessity. When you’ve already got the cross-section of the F-117 down to what I believe is the size of a bird, that’s gonna be hard to pick up on a radar screen.

I believe that a better qualification would be the hiding of heat exhaust. I don’t know which one is better.

Basically, we need for the F-22 to go into production and actually be used in a war to see how they do.

When I read about a stealth aircraft having a radar signature reduced to the size of a large bird I think about a radar operator viewing a bird going 600 kts and having little difficulty concluding that it’s really a stealth aircraft. This is probably more a reflection of my ignorance about stealth and radar technology than any great insight on my part.

The operator won’t ever see it. Modern radars have computer filters to remove stuff that doesn’t seem to be an aircraft. So the idea is that no matter how fast the stealth plane is moving, it reflects so little radar that the computer tosses it out as noise or interference.

As an aside, this is the same reason that no one noticed that piece of debris orbiting with Columbia until this week. When they watched the radar real-time, the computers filtered it out because it was too small, but when they looked at the logged, unfiltered data, they saw it.

I know about the filters. I quess the question might be - What makes it difficult or impossible to rewrite the filters to display very small images displaying ‘jet like’ behavior?

The F117 was designed with the highest priority placed on stealth. The F22 benefits from newer technology, which means that it can be made stealthy without such a heavy penatly to its aerodynamics (no more of that flat faceting that makes the “wobbily goblin” so wobbily), but the F22’s main priority was performance as a fighter, not stealth. I would be very surprised if the aerodynamic requirements of the F22 (for example, the ability to supercruise) allowed it to be as stealthy as the F117.

The F117, despite its designation as a fighter, is really a light ground attack bomber. Comparing it to the F22 is really comparing apples and oranges.

If I had to guess, maybe it’s because the radar doesn’t get enough of a return to accurately determine velocity or heading.

Realistically, The OP’s question can never be answered. No one who could definitively answer it would be allowed to post that info on the internet.

As a side note, I remember reading that some people had figured out that they might be able to track a stealth plane based on the “hole” it makes in the normal radio energy floating around from radio, TV, etc.

I was not asking for comparisons for anything other than stealth characterstics. I am very aware the Nighthawk is a ground attack aircraft, not a fighter. Even so, the F-22 is more properly called the FA22, as it will carry out ground attack roles as well in a similar way that the FA18 and Bombcat do now while still fulfilling the Air Superiority role.

They both can/will drop precision ordanance on ground targets and utlilize Stealth for survivability. It is by no means comparing apples/oranges in that role.

The F117’s main design feature was stealth, and everything was subservient to that. The F22 is primarily an attack fighter, and, while making it as stealthy as is possible given the other design constraints is preferable, stealth isn’t the priority.

The F111 is the same boat (metaphorically speaking): An attack bomber with a fighter’s designation. So how come they aren’t As? Is it less manly to fly an A117? Inquiring minds want to know.

DD

I hope this isn’t too much of a hijack, but to answer DesertDog’s question about nomenclature:

The F-111 design started as a joint Air Force-Navy project that was supposed to fulfill the Navy’s requirement for a carrier-borne fleet defense fighter and an Air Force requirement for an supersonic strike aircraft. These two requirements started separately, but then-defense secretary Robert McNamara decided it would be cost-effective to combine the two programs during the design phase.

The Navy dropped out out of the program and re-defined its requirements, eventually resulting in the F-14 Tomcat.

The Air Force eliminated the requirements for an air superiority fighter once the Navy dropped out, leaving it with a long-range penetrator for strategic (FB-111) and tactical (F-111) bombing missions. When deployed, the designation was retained even though the mission had changed. Partly because of the origin of the program but also because the F-111 was assigned to Tactical Air Command. The FB-111 was assigned to the Strategic Air Command.

Today, the F-111 has been retired and the TAC and SAC have been combined (mostly) into the Air Combat Command (ACC), which operates fighters, attack aircraft, and bombers.

From the FAS site.

The F111 is covered above - but the reason, IIRC, the F117 is named as such is for security reasons. They wanted to hide the design amongst the 110 series of fighters and not hint that they were developing a new light bomber.

Changing the “filter” on a complex RADAR system is not quite the quick fix that it might seem. By the time you increase sensitivity far enough to see a plane with the “visibility” of a large bird, you end up filling up your screen with a whole lot of other returns, some of which are thermal gradients in the air, real birds, and other such stuff. A human being reading a screen can’t pick out the real threat from the chaff, if the chaff is so ubiquitous that the screen is always full.

So, you then have to have the computers analyze each of these returns, and decide to either display it, or ignore it. But the computer isn’t smart, it’s just follows orders fast. The design specification of the computer fix is pretty hard to decide. If an airplane banks hard and then stalls, is it acting like the profile of an airplane? If you set your filter to include every possible set of signals from a stealth aircraft, you go back to a screen full of hits that aren’t real.

Also, the computer power it takes to analyze every hit goes up by huge magnitudes, as the number of hits goes up. So, just turning up the sensitivity bogs down the computer real quick. Bigger faster computers will help, but it’s not something that every nation can afford to install in every radar installation. When the technology catches up, you change the design.

The probable real life situation is rather bizarre. It will most likely be the case that another nation will learn to duplicate our current stealth technology, or succeed in stealing it. Then comes the obvious big surprise. We probably already can see the F 117, and even the B 2. We certainly have a better chance of anyone else of trying to do it, and a whole lot more chances to test our attempts. When country X deploys it’s stealth squadron, we will just “light 'em up” a few times in international air space, to let them know they just wasted several billion dollars.

Then we move on to another type of arms race, with yet another multi billion dollar price tag.

Tris

I can’t seem to find confirmation, but I believe the Air Force no longer uses the “A” designation for attack aircraft. I am not sure what the A-10’s story is, but for some reason it seems to follow the Navy’s numbering system (A-4, A-6, etc.)

What is the official status of the F22? I’ve seen them in video games and simulations for quite some time now, but are there any actual real-world F22s? If so, when are they going to be adopted for military use?

[Air Force Link: Air Force selects Langley as first F-22 home]:

I think the A-10 is called that because it’s designed to attack ground troops and vehicles. I don’t think it can attack anything in the air very well.

Yeah, but neither can the F-117.

So, would it be fair to say this:**
Which is more stealthy? F117A or F22?**

We don’t know, and those that do for sure would never say so on a public message board.

??