History of Stealth

Wahubna

EXPERIMENTAL-AB
Joined
16 February 2015
Messages
66
Reaction score
86
First, I want to thank the many authors and researchers that are present on this forum. Your hard work is much appreciated! A few of your names can be found on my book shelves!


The many forum topics and the many works of the many authors here have got me thinking about attempting to form a stealth aircraft design timeline.

I would like to create a timeline that shows the evolution of how LO aircraft came to be from the very first approaches to modern day and maybe future....keeping in mind this should strictly be a safe list with no "dirty words" (strictly unclassified public info).
I would like to capture:
Country of Origin, Make, Model, significance, and relevant year

"Significance" being some what subjective but something to the effect of '1st to do ___' or 'first flight of _____' or in some cases it seems a model is worth mentioning because it appears to have been the predecessor of something much more significant later on. As in some early GD LWF concepts looked a LOT like a mini F-22/F-35.

I would love to make this international and include things like MBB Lampyridae.

Should be good fun to try to figure out how things like FISH, HARVEY, Quiet Bird, and Sneaky Pete all line up! I'm curious how multi-national, multi-team, and how early it gets.

Tailwinds
 
First, I want to thank the many authors and researchers that are present on this forum. Your hard work is much appreciated! A few of your names can be found on my book shelves!


The many forum topics and the many works of the many authors here have got me thinking about attempting to form a stealth aircraft design timeline.

I would like to create a timeline that shows the evolution of how LO aircraft came to be from the very first approaches to modern day and maybe future....keeping in mind this should strictly be a safe list with no "dirty words" (strictly unclassified public info).
I would like to capture:
Country of Origin, Make, Model, significance, and relevant year

"Significance" being some what subjective but something to the effect of '1st to do ___' or 'first flight of _____' or in some cases it seems a model is worth mentioning because it appears to have been the predecessor of something much more significant later on. As in some early GD LWF concepts looked a LOT like a mini F-22/F-35.

I would love to make this international and include things like MBB Lampyridae.

Should be good fun to try to figure out how things like FISH, HARVEY, Quiet Bird, and Sneaky Pete all line up! I'm curious how multi-national, multi-team, and how early it gets.

Tailwinds
There are also things like FISH and Kingfish, Blackbird (A-12/YF-12/SR-71), D-21, etc.
 
I wish you all the best of luck. I am not to knowledgeable about this subject but two books that I can recommend is first Ben r. Rich's Skunkworks, which is his biography that goes into alot of the history of Have Blue and later the F-117. Also Stealth by Peter Westwick. This is more of a general overview of stealth technology itself and includes the story of the Snark missiles in the '50s, the A-12 and a more balanced view on the the Northrop and Lockheed rivalry and the Air Force/government role in it.
 
The many forum topics and the many works of the many authors here have got me thinking about attempting to form a stealth aircraft design timeline.

Nor a complete list, but...


U-2 RAINBOW (1957)
T-33A PASSPORT VISA (1958)
A-12 OXCART (1962)
SR-71 EARNING (1964)
AQUILINE (1970)
HAVE BLUE (1977)
SENIOR PROM ATCM (1980)
F-117A SENIOR TREND (1981)
TACIT BLUE (1982)
B-2 (1989)
Model 151 ARES (1990)
YF-23 (1990)
AGM-137 TSSAM (1992)
YF-22 (1990)
RQ-3A DarkStar (1995)
YF-118G Bird of Prey (1996)
X-36 (1997)
F-22A (1997)
X-35 (2000)
X-32 (2000)
X-45A (2002)
X-47A (2003)
P-170 Sentinel (2005)
P-175 Polecat (2005)
F-35 (2006)
RQ-180 (2010)
X-47B (2011)
Phantom Ray (2011)
B-21 Raider (2023)
 
"From Rainbow to Gusto" has quite a bit on pre-rainbow work.
 
Ryan did quite a bit of trial and error for signature reduction in the early 60's for the Firefly family. RAM blankets, wire screens over inlets, inlet location, canted tails, etc
 
Ryan did quite a bit of trial and error for signature reduction in the early 60's for the Firefly family. RAM blankets, wire screens over inlets, inlet location, canted tails, etc

They did, and it appears now that this work was more significant than previously thought.

There are also at least a few pre-1990 programs that have not been disclosed..... yet.
 
They did, and it appears now that this work was more significant than previously thought.

There are also at least a few pre-1990 programs that have not been disclosed..... yet.
They tore out half of the Lightning Bug book with black markers, I'm told.

*might have been his Firefly book, my memory fades
 
Bill Bahret provides many insights into the early development of low observables, and mentions at least one previously undisclosed program from the 1960s:

William F. Bahret: The Cold War Aerospace Technology History Project (Interview 1)

William F. Bahret: The Cold War Aerospace Technology History Project (Interview 2)

W.F. Bahret, "The beginnings of stealth technology", 1993
 
Oh my these responses just warm the cockles of my little heart.

I picked up Rainbow to Gusto because of this forum not 3 weeks ago and am almost done with it. As a few of you put it, THEE definitive source for an important era in aerospace history.

Keep 'em coming!

I'll be updating my excel sheet soon and will share here.

I'm wondering to what extent we should include some of the "Luft'46" concepts? Some of them look eerily like LO airplanes that would come decades later.

Tailwinds
 
How far back do you plan on going?
I'm thinking WW2. Maybe more specifically once sensors (as in radar) came into use. When stealth began to actually get woven into the layout and engineering of the aircraft. I would rather not try to cover every flipping paint scheme that ever existed.


Not necessarily any specific spectrum though. RF, IR, optics, acoustic, etc. However, I think the major influencer of this story is RF with IR being #2.
 
In my opinion this thread is dedicated exclusively to stealth techniques developed from the sixties. Invisibility techniques in the visible and infrared optical spectrum and radar-absorbing materials developed by the Germans during the two World Wars have no place here.
 
I'm wondering to what extent we should include some of the "Luft'46" concepts? Some of them look eerily like LO airplanes that would come decades later.
Only if there are contemporary references showing the design decisions were made to reduce signature. Which don't seem to exist / haven't been found yet.

But RF signature reduction technology and RAM development dates back to this period in the UK and Germany, and on the UK side there's the following link to their postwar work e.g. mature enough for Avro to weave into their TSR.2 submission.
 
In my opinion this thread is dedicated exclusively to stealth techniques developed from the sixties. Invisibility techniques in the visible and infrared optical spectrum and radar-absorbing materials developed by the Germans during the two World Wars have no place here.
I don't think it would be exclusively from the 60s. Seems plenty was done before 1960.
 
Optic Stealth​



The flight of Icarus and the invisible cape of Loki are recurrent concepts in the mythology of many cultures as they represent the noblest and darkest side of the human spirit. Despite its apparent incompatibility, the war dynamics search for the perfect weapon would end up joining them.

The Italian Rumpler Taube that carried bomber missions over Libya since 1911 had their wings painted with clear nitrate dope over linen and the pilots discovered that they were much more difficult to see the airplanes, from the ground, against a clear sunny sky.

In May 1912 a German Taube was experimentally coated with a transparent cellulosic material named ‘Emaillite’. During the flight tests made by Lieutenant Edouard Nitter in Wiener-Neustadt it was observed that the aircraft was practically invisible when flying at more than 300 m of altitude.

In 1913 the French presented a monoplane Moreau at the Salon de l’Aviation with transparent wings. The coating consisted of two layers of ‘Emaillite’ of 0.5 mm with a sheet of tulle between them to increase its resistance to tearing.

In 1914, engineer Ledebeff tried a new cellulosic cladding on the structure of a Farman biplane, but the material had an excessive elasticity that affected the lifting capacity of the wings.

In the summer of 1913, German engineer Anton Knubel made experiments in Münster coating a Taube with a transparent material named ‘Aeroid’ to increase the invisibility effect. The aircraft structure was painted in sky blue. In 1915, Knubel started using the ‘Cellon’ an acetyl cellulosic acid compound made by Rheinisch-Westfälischen Sprengstoff AG in Cologne. The ‘Cellon’ was transparent, little flammable and could be sewn or glued, although it might be not very much resistant to tearing as the inventor killed himself in an Albatros B.II with transparent wings on September the 8th.

On 9 July 1916, another almost invisible aircraft, marked with red crosses, was seen during a flight test, in the Somme area, by the B.E. 2C of the 16 Sqn RFC and unsuccessfully chased by French fighters. It was one of the three Fokker E.III (werknummers 616, 627, 639) that had been clad with ‘Cellon’ in June.

The invisibility tests continued during the war, using Aviatik C-1 reconnaissance airplanes and bombers Linke-Hoffman R.I and Gotha VGO in 1917. With dry weather the ‘Cellon’ was very transparent and smooth as glass, but it degraded with humidity, losing its aerodynamic properties. The material of 0.4 mm of thickness used to coat one of the Fokker ‘Eindecker’ weighted 25 kg more that the usual fabric and required much maintenance.

The Central Powers finally had to give up the magic ‘Tarnkappe’ of Siegfried in favour of a more vulgar material, that was also more resistant to heat, rain and tearing.

Since 1916, a new fabric began to be used in the Western Front, that patterned with polygons of different colours reduced the visibility of airplanes confusing them with the ground tones.

The new camouflage system was named ‘Lozenge-Tarnung’ and based its design on the Impressionists painters that, it was discovered, had a distortional optical effect during combat manoeuvres that made the enemy accurate aim very difficult.

By the end of the ninetieth century, zoologists discovered that the tiger stripes mimic the vertical shadows in the reed beds where they hide for hunting. On the other side, the zebras stripes seem designed to increase visibility; however, five out of six lion attacks fail, due to more subtle causes. As it turns out, due to the movement of the animal, the rhythmic waving caused by the black stripes produces an optical distortion (known as ‘akinetopsia’) that affects the way in which the brain calculates distances.

The Royal Navy was the first to apply this principle to the naval war but, towards 1915, almost every warship was painted with white, black, grey and blue diagonal stripes to disorient the telemeters of the enemy artillery.

In the air, the fighters Albatros D.V of the Jasta 37 were the first to use the optical distortion techniques, with its tailplane painted in black and white diagonal stripes. In combat, the violent turns of the airplane achieved the ‘zebra effect’ thus disrupting the aiming of the British pilots. They had the additional resource to use the Iron Crosses painted on the upper wing as reference, but the Lozengue camouflage and the aircraft vibration during tight turns made the distance estimation very difficult in deflection shooting. The Fokker DR.I of the Jasta 6 also used the ‘zebra effect’ painting the tailplane, the fuselage and even the interplane struts with stripes.

The system worked and towards 1917 almost every German reconnaissance two-seater airplane, operating in the Western Front, had a rectangular patch of diagonal stripes on their fuselage.

The British airplanes started to imitate them. In 1918 it was common to see the F-2B and ‘Camels’ of the RFC with series of white bands painted over the khaki of the rear fuselage.

The technique reached its peak of refinement during the summer of 1918 with the Albatros DV flown by Ltn. Fritz Rumey, assigned to the Jasta 5, an elite squadron. In this airplane, the diagonal stripes had four different widths and had been painted in spiral (like on a candy) along the fuselage.

The Austrians had their own mind about the subject. They started painting small spirals on the upper surfaces of the Phönix fighters but, around 1917 they camouflaged the Aviatik with a special scheme of hexagons which colours varied in intensity, lighter on the wing tips and tail surfaces, to blur the characteristic shape of the airplane.

The British had a problem with the colour of their airplanes. Since 1915 all were brown and both the fighters and the anti-aircraft artillery had the tendency to open fire against anything painted in another colour….. French ones included. As a consequence, their experiments were more conservative, although at the end of the war some airplanes carried the roundels of the upper plane painted in asymmetric position to confuse the enemy, as it happens with the false eye that some tropical fishes had near the tail. They also used additional, more blurred roundels, painted on unusual spots of the airplane, like the tailplane, the back of the fuselage or the central section of the upper wing.

In 1918 limited essays were made on skewed-perspective box-grids, diminishing overlapping rectangles and high visibility but misleading geometrical designs. These experiments were shaped by advice from painters of the ‘Vorticist School’ (Britain’s version of Futurism) like Wyndham Lewis and their ultimate objective was to create in the enemy pilot that second of doubt and confusion that frequently is key to escape.

The end of the WWI did not end with these practices. In 1923 the Finnish Fokker D.VII were painted on a ‘splinter’ scheme in dark blue, light grey, purple and light green. During the 30s, the new Luftwaffe started to use the ‘splinter’ in two or three different shades, although some Heinkel 45, seen during the Spanish Civil War, still kept the ‘Lozenge’ camouflage.

In 1935 the Hawker Demon fighters of the 74 sqn of the RAF, based in Malta, tried a new type of camouflage based on ochre, yellow, grey, green and brick red, with just one roundel on upper wing starboard and the opposite side aileron painted in aluminium!

The general idea, apparently not very successful, was not to make the plane hard to see but hard to be shot at by enemy pilots.

During the first years of the 30s the French chemists produced a new transparent material, similar to the cellophane, named ‘Rodoid’ or organic glass. In 1935 the Russian engineer S.G. Kozlov made new experiments, replacing the fabric coating of a Yakovlev AIR-4 trainer by ‘Rodoid’ sheets. To reinforce the optical effect, the inner structure of the airplane had been painted in aluminium colour. The flight test conducted along a standard AIR-4 proved a reduction of visibility of 75 per cent. They also revealed that the ‘Rodoid’ had electrostatic properties and accumulated the dust generated during take off, losing much of its transparency. The project of invisible airplane ‘Nyeridimyi Samolyet’ was cancelled in 1935.

The Munich crisis of September 1938 served, among other things, to prove how unprepared were the French and British air forces for the war. At that time, London was defended by biplanes that were slower than a ‘postal’ Heinkel He 111. The Hawker Fury and the Dewoitine 510 lost their aluminized painting of peace time that was hastily covered with a dark green layer.

Despite their theoretical neutrality, the North American airplanes also lost the chrome yellow on their wings. In 1940 the US Army Air Corps performed low visibility camouflage tests with some Curtiss P.36 and Northrop A-17 A. The US Navy repeated the British experiments of the ‘Vorticist School’ with some Brewster F2A and Northrop BT-1 in North Island, California. Finally mass production prevailed: Seversky and Curtiss in olive drab, Brewster and Grumman in naval grey.

In 1939 the colour of the European aviation was as dark as its future. The Germans used splinter in two shades of dark green. The British used dark green, dark earth and black and white undersides. The French used earth, ash and dark green. Over the French-German border all the airplanes looked the same. The Bf 109 shot down Belgian Hurricanes on neutrality patrols, mistaking them for British fighters. The authentic Hurricanes of the BEF shot down Potez 630 confusing them with the Bf 110 and were attacked by Morane fighters that took them for German airplanes.

Only the Poles showed some creativity. When entering the war with Germany most of their fighters were well positioned in auxiliary aerodromes, the square shaped national markings were painted on the wings in asymmetric position and some P.Z.L. P.11C fighters of the 161 squadron had schemes of optical distortion painted in zig zag over the wings, although that was not nearly enough to overcome the technical and numeric superiority of the Luftwaffe.

During the World War II, when airplanes were manufactured by tens of thousands, the dynamic of the assembly lines did not allow any experiment with complex camouflages. There was not even the time to paint the airplanes and many Mustangs, Forteresses and Thunderbolts were delivered with the naked aluminium coating, while nationality roundels were replaced by big decals to save time and hand work!

In the battlefield that covered from the jungle to the sea and from the Arctic to the desert, things were very different and the airplanes received any type of conceivable camouflage to get unnoticed against the ground they flew over. Some missions, like the stratospheric combat, photographic reconnaissance or night fighting, required specially modified airplanes with camouflage schemes adapted to the environment on which they should operate.

The Ju 86P, Bf 109 G-6/AS, Spitfire HF Mk VIII, Westland Welkin and D.H. Mosquito NF.XV, intended for high altitude combat, used to go wholly painted light grey. The Lockheed P-38 F-5 that photographed the Ruhr at medium height, were painted bluish fog-grey; the Spitfire P.R.Mk IV and Mosquito P.R. Mk XVI were painted a deep blue colour, to rest them visibility against the sky colour at high altitude, while the Spitfire P.R. Mk VII of the 541 Sqn, operating at dawn with clear weather, were painted in pink colour. For the darkness war, the RAF painted in black the under surfaces of all its bombers, to make them less visible to the reflectors.

Until 1943, all night fighters were painted in black. Germany used the Arado Ar 68E, Bf 109 E-4, Bf 110 C-6 and E-2, Do 17 Z-10, Do 215 B-5 and Do 217 J and N. The British used the Defiant Mk II, Hurricane Mk II, Beaufighter Mk II, Mosquito NF.Mk II, and even some Spitfire Mk VB of the 111 Sqn. At the beginning they used an extra matt anti reflective paint, but it turned out that it produced drag, limiting the airplanes speed.

The Americans operated in Europe and in the Pacific with Northrop P-61 and Douglas Havoc II, the Japanese used the Nakajima J1N1-S Gekko, the Italians, the Caproni Vizzola F-5 and the French the Potez 631. It seemed to be the most logical solution, but the black painting did not work out well. The airplanes were very visible from above, when flying over clouds lighted by the reflectors.

The Germans started to use this advantage in August 1943, using conventional fighters Bf 109 and Fw 190 in the ‘Wilde Sau’ night operations. In the winter of 1942, some Do 215 B-5 and Do 217 J night fighters were experimentally painted in light grey, to make them less visible to the gunners of the Lancaster and to the pilots of the Mosquito NF. II of escort. The results were good and it was ordered that all night fighters and ‘Wilde Sau’ would be fully painted with RLM 76 ‘Hellblau’ (light blue).

Recalling the experiments made with the ‘night’ Lozenge for the Gotha bombers, in the WWI, the hazy effect was improved making the shape of the airplanes blurred by means of patches or ‘worm’ schemes of RLM 75 ‘Hell Violett-Grau’ (light grey violet). I worked better with the big airplanes Ju 88 G-6, Do 217 N and Bf 110 G-4 while the fighters Bf 109 G-5 / G-6 and the Fw 190 A-6 were light grey RLM 02 ‘Grüngrau’. Some had the underside starboard wing painted in black for identification of the flak.

Since 1943, the night fighters Mosquito adopted the idea, changing the overall black by the standard daylight camouflage in dark green and ocean grey upper surfaces, keeping the under surfaces in the previous black colour, that the RAF considered useful against reflectors, provided that they flew over the layer of clouds.

The accurateness and volume of fire of the flak increased daily. From the viewpoint of the British fighters that made straffing missions over the occupied France, the number of casualties grew until 1945… the Reich vomited flak.

In 1942, Captain Paul Hexter designed a black and white dazzle camouflage scheme for the under side of the attack airplanes. It was tested in a Mustang Mk IA proving that, like the warships of the WWI, it distorted the distance calculation of German telemeters during flights at low altitude, by the so known ‘zebra effect’. Its use was never generalized due to its difficult maintenance.

Since time immemorial, magicians hid objects using the almost infallible technique of bringing the public attention towards a different point from that where the real action is happening. In May 1940, the gunners of the British Expeditionary Force that defended the French aerodrome of Vitry, got ready to shoot over two Messerschmitt that went towards them flying at 200 m of altitude. Focused on their objective, they were caught unawares by the second couple of the ‘Schwarm’ that surged from the trees flying at ground level and destroying several Hurricane of the 56 Sqn.

In the Pacific, the Betty torpedo bombers of the Japanese Imperial Navy used the same technique, operating in groups of three airplanes, out of which just one of them flew at medium altitude.

In the Mediterranean the Savoia 79 of the Regia Aeronautica were too visible over the sea, with their ‘Sicilian’ camouflage. Some machines specialised in attacks with torpedoes received a layer of light grey painting in the front of the fuselage and wings leading edges to diminish its frontal visibility.

In the Atlantic, antisubmarine aircrafts of the US Navy had the same problem: the U-Boat immersed at the lowest sign of sighting. In 1943, an experiment was performed under the Yehudi code-name to diminish the frontal visibility against the luminous background of the sky. It consisted of 10 sealed-beam lights, installed along the wings leading edges and the rim of the engine cowling of an Avenger TBM-3D bomber. The tests proved that the Yehudi system lowered the visual acquisition range from twelve to two miles.

The entry into service of the new centimetric radars, that the ‘Metox’ detectors of the Kriegsmarine could not detect, disrupted the balance in the Battle of the Atlantic, rendering the Yehudi useless. But the experiments went on using a Liberator and were only declassified in the 80s.

During the Vietnam war, the idea was resumed under the ‘Compass-Ghost’ code name and the tests made with a blue and white F-4 Phantom, lighted by nine high-intensity lamps on the wings and fuselage, reduced the detection range a 30 percent.

In the mid 90s, the advanced achieved in Computer Generated Holography, wavelength computation with Fourier transform method and Point Source Holograms, allowed the creation of holographic images in 3D around an object to hide it. But the system just worked with static objects and the Phased Array Optics required a considerable amount of electronic equipment.

In 2003, researchers at the University of Tokyo developed an active camouflage system with video cameras that registered the background to project it against the object that should be camouflaged.

In 2004, the discovery of the graphene made possible the manufacturing of curve video screens and adapts them to any surface. An aircraft with a coat of grapheme screens and equipped with video cameras that register the background from any angle and project it on the screens at the other side, may become practically invisible.

The layers of grapheme are super-thin and several of them, with different properties, may be superimposed. Under the optical screen, it is possible to locate a layer formed by hexagonal elements of grapheme that may be heated or cooled down in a selective way, thanks to the ‘Adaptiv’ system, developed by BAE systems in 2011. This layer would very efficiently act as IR camouflage.
 
Infra-red​



During the first year of the WWII a try was made to improve the detection capabilities of night fighters with the help of searchlights installed onboard the aircraft.

Italians used a night version of the Fiat CR-42 with spotlights, in gondolas under the wings, and prolonged engine exhaust. The system was inefficient due to the limited power of the searchlights.

In 1942 there were ten British ‘Turbinlite’ operational squadrons integrated by Douglas Havoc bombers with a powerful searchlight installed in the nose. Guided by radar until the intruder proximity, they lighted up by surprise, giving the Hurricane Mk.II, operating nearby, the opportunity to visually locate it. The system had a weakness in the difficulty to coordinate the attacks in darkness, being left aside by mid 1943, as in practice the light made them also easy targets for German gunners.

To overcome that shortfall the Luftwaffe started using infra-red searchlights with a diameter of 30 cm installed under the nose of some Bf 110 D-3 and E-1. The radiation reflected on the target was made visible for the human eye through and IR telescope named ‘Q-Rohr’ installed in front of the pilot.

The system was developed by Allgemeine Electrizitaetsgesellschaft in Berlin and Zeiss in Jena, under the name ‘Spanner Anlage I’ and entered into service in 1941 with some Messerschmitt of the 4./NJG1 squadron and ten Dornier 17 Z-7 and Z-10 of the I./NJG2. The latest were equipped with a more powerful searchlight with a diameter of 60 cm, installed in the nose cone. Later on the system was experimentally installed in the Do 215 B-5 of the 4./NJG1. In all cases ‘Spanner I’ proved to be inadequate, being unable to identify friend of foe and with a range of only 200 m.

In February 1942 a Do 217 E-2 was modified installing a FuG 202 radar with a minimum detection range of 200 m and an IR active seeker ‘Spanner III’ for short distances. It was an improved version with a bigger scope and searchlight with a diameter of 60 cm, manufactured by AEG. It was useful just for an approximation among clouds as in most cases the target was visible at 200 m without any electronic help.

The ‘Spanner II’ was an IR passive device developed by AEG-Zeiss for its use in single engine fighters, detecting only IR-emitting targets, such as exhaust flames. It was tested on an Fw 190 A on 10 December 1941 with poor results

The development of the IR devices was difficult and slow. Until 1945 there were no practical results, when the Zeiss FuG 280 `Kiel Z` appeared. It was a passive seeker, with 4,000 m range and 25 cm diameter scanning mirror with 20º side to side forward view. The indications are presented on a cathode ray tube. It was tested on the Ju 88 G-6 (3C + AB) of the I./NJG4 on 12 March 1945, too late to be useful.

The main shortfall of the first ‘Spanner’ was the reduced field of view of the telescope. The image also suffered interferences from the moon, the stars, the flares and the explosions of flak.

In 1944 the Luftwaffe started using ‘Verbandsflug’ tactics with a great number of night fighters operating in the same sector. To avoid confusions, the airplanes identify themselves using the infra-red lamp termed ‘Gaensebrust’.

The British bombers used infra-red navigation lights since 1944. To locate them, the Germans developed the IR seeker named ‘Falter’ with just 15º of view field and difficult to use.

Another system termed ‘Mücke’ was being tested at the end of the war in Europe. Although the Allies preferred to use their advanced centimetric radars, the Luftwaffe ordered the firms AEG and Siemens to develop the airborne warning devices ‘Froschauge’ and ‘Katze’ - the latest based on the ‘Spanner II’ - and an IR jamming known as ‘Wärmebold’ that were never used in combat.
 
Radar​


On 15 January 1943 the Technical Service of the Luftwaffe concluded that the centimetric wavelengths did not represent a military advantage that justified the effort to obtain them. That would have meant to retire all the available radio technicians from the war front, modify the production lines to manufacture new types of radio lamps, obtain bigger quantities of wolfram from the allied countries and delay the series production of the ‘Neptun’.

On 2 February a Stirling bomber of the Pathfinder Force, that marked targets for an incursion against Hamburg, was shot down by the flak over Rotterdam. The examination of the wreck showed that part of its electronic equipment operated on 9 cm wavelength…..it was one of the first H2S cartographic radars that could be recovered almost intact, as the self-destruction mechanism did not work.

It was based on the cavity magnetron technology, a casual discovery made by J.T. Randall and A. H. Boot in 1940. When the German technicians could make it work they were astonished by the quality of the images received through its small parabolic mirror. Geographical features or even the shape of ships and airplanes could be clearly distinguished at a time when the Lichtenstein SN-2 still operated on 3.30 m.

The German systems of manufacturing still took some time to adapt to the new technology and the overloaded electronic industry was only able to produce ten copies, denominated Berlin N-1, before the end of the war in Europe.

Meanwhile the Allied had been able to break the balance on their favour. The U-Boats were located and destroyed in the darkness, without any reaction from its ‘Metox’ to the 9 cm. emissions. When the new ‘Naxos’ were installed, the Allies started to emit on 3 cm and the slaughtering went on. In the air, the ‘Lichtenstein’ were positioned by the ‘Serrate’ devices of the Beaufighter and Mosquito and the German IFF was interfered by the ‘Perfectos’ system.

The ‘Oboe’ incursions resumed with the help of the 9 cm transmissions, impossible to interfere with the German equipment of the time. On 24 July 1943 the Bomber Command performed a mass attack on the heart of the Reich, using ‘Windows’, interference equipments installed in the aircrafts, electronic decoys and long range escort fighters Mosquito N.F. XII and N.F. XIII. The latest was equipped with nitrous-oxyde boost that also used successfully to catch the Fw 190 and Me 410 night intruders during the Steinbock Operation.

In May 1944 the new N.F. XIX received authorization to perform missions of free fighting over Germany, trying to attract the enemy night fighters with ‘Monica’ radar emissions, feigning to be a bomber. By the beginning of 1945, the N.F.30 came into operation with engines equipped with exhaust shrouds, designed for minimum IR emission and almost invisible in darkness. They were fast enough to hunt the Me 262 B-1a/U1 and the Fi 103 flying bombs.

Germany lost the initiative and was forced to adopt a survivor strategy based on antiradar techniques and equipments.

The old ‘Matratzen’ and ‘Hirschgeweith’ antennae were replaced by swivelling mountings ‘Panorama’ and parabolic mirrors ‘Parabolspiegel’.

Every detecting equipment was improved adding filters, Doppler devices, frequency switching devices - ’Bernhard ‘Eidechse’ ‘Feuerzange’ ‘Goldhammer’ ‘K-Laus’ ‘Kurmark’ ‘Laus’ ‘Mosaik’ ‘Nürnberg’ ‘Nürnburg’ ‘Reiss-Laus’ ‘Riese-Gustav’ ‘Schliebelaus’ ‘Stendal’ ‘Tastlaus’ ‘Taunus’ ‘Urechse’ ‘Wismar’ ‘Würzlaus’ - named ‘Flammen’ and complementary infra-red detectors and sound locators.

The airplanes and missiles were equipped with passive receivers of the emissions of Allied radars of the types ‘Naxos’, ‘Fishpond’, ‘Kleine Heidelberg’ ‘Postklystron’ and ‘Radieschen’. The U-Boats and surface vessels of the Kriegsmarine received the naval versions from these devices named ‘Metox’ ‘Bali’ ‘Cypern’ ‘Palau’ ‘Sumatra’ and ‘Timor’. To jam the radars of the Allied, aluminium bands similar to the ‘Window’ British system (named by the German ‘Düppelstreifen’) were also used. Besides being launched from bombers in the classic way, launch rockets of 86 mm (similar to the current Chaff) were designed for the Kriegsmarine under the name Spgr.L/4.8 ‘Kurhessen’. They surrounded the ship in a cloud of metallic strips when detected by enemy radar. The U-Boats used the ‘Aphrodite IV’ system (Fu MT1) since June 1943. They were radar decoy balloons coated with metallic painting that floated a few meters above the water surface anchored to a floating plate, producing a strong radar echo similar to that of the U-boat conning tower on British radar screens.

Another antiradar technique ‘Netzhemd absortion durch’ was the manufacturing of radar-absorbent materials (RAM). The first practical application consisted of coating the U-Boat snorkels with a special compound of rubber and carbon named ‘Sumpf’ that almost obliterated the radar profile. Its use was started in May 1944, with a plastic ‘Zelligelit’ coating against water and pressure effects.

Coatings ‘Tarnmatte’ and ‘Wesch’ were developed shortly afterwards for other parts of the submarine, like the deck and conning tower. The first one was a thick sheet of ‘Buna’ synthetic rubber that contained iron oxide powder used against the 9.7 cm wavelength of the H2S British radar. The second one was a carbonyl iron powder loaded rubber sheet, about 7.62 mm thick, with a resonant frequency at 3 GHz. The rest of the submarine hull was covered with ‘Alberich’ anechoic coating, 4 mm thick rubber called ‘Oppanol’ against the ASDIC sonar pulses.

There also existed an antiradar painting for airplanes, the ‘Schornsteinfeger’ developed in the BHF (Hochfrequenzinstitut) of Travemünde. A radar camouflage material consisting of a thick bituminous paint heavily loaded with carbon. When applied in thickness carefully calculated in relation to the radar frequency the arriving signal would be trapped within the dielectric material and its return energy damped out and transformed itself in heat. The painting was more efficient if applied over non-metallic structures predecessors of the current composite materials.

The most efficient device was the ‘IG-Jaumann’ developed by IG Farben. It consisted of 8 cm thick panels formed by 7 layers of conductive material plastic/carbon separated by layers of di-electric ‘Igelit’ polyvinylchloride. It was used against the wavelengths between 2 and 50 cm effectively reducing the reflectivity of -20dB over 2.15 GHz. However, it could only be manufactured in curved or straight panels, which made its use on aircrafts very difficult.

At least three aircraft manufacturers were experimenting with antiradar materials during the last months of the war. The designer Kurt Tank of the firm Focke Wulf built the night fighter Ta 154 with wood to make it less easily detected by the radars of the Allied. The structure was of plywood Lignofol L90 and the coating was of a new plastic known as ‘Dynal Z5’ manufactured by Dynamit Nobel-Troisdorff.

The elasticity modules should be assembled with synthetic glue named ‘Tego-Film’ (equivalent to the ‘Araldite’ used in the British Mosquito). The ‘Tego-Film’ was made of phenolic resin glues. Unfortunately it could not be used for the mass production of the Ta 154 as the manufacturing plant that synthesised it (Goldmann Company) was destroyed during the bombing of Wuppertal. The replacing of the ‘Tego Film’ by the ‘Kaurit’ adhesive, manufactured by Dynamit AG in Leverkausen, was not possible due to its high acid rate that eventually destroyed the wood.

The Ta 154 was not the only casualty of the lack of ‘Tego-Film’ suffered by the ‘Stealth’ project. The construction of the prototype Lippisch P.11, a ‘Schnellbomber’ flying wing equipped with two HeS 011 turbojets, was also stopped. It was a fast bomber able to fly at high altitude by means of radio navigation devices and incorporated different antiradar technologies. The structure was of plywood and the coating of Dynal Z5.

It was expected that the high flight profile, the ‘Stealth’ flying wing configuration and the ‘Schornsteinfeger’ painting would make it impossible to detect. There was also a plan to build a night fighter version. By the end of the war only the central section of the wing has been built.

For their own part, the Gotha/Horten team created several designs of flying wing fitted with excellent antiradar characteristics due to their outer shape (without any tailfin) and to their moulded wood coating ‘Formholz’ -15 mm plywood/carbon sawdust/plywood composition- and ‘Tronal’ plastic.

By the end of the war the construction of a derivative of the Horten Ho VIII named Ho XVIII has been started in Göttingen. It was a prototype of an ‘Amerikabomber’ propelled by six Jumo 004 B turbojets, a flying wing without tailfins with enough range to attack New York. It was expected to start mass production at the underground workshops of the Kahla-Thuringia complex in 1945.

It seems odd that the Horten brothers, a couple of enthusiastic amateurs, attracted the attention of Göring with their little orthodox designs. One might speculate that Germans discovered the Stealth effect by chance, associated to the flying wings. Perhaps due to an unusual Freya contact or from a confidential report of Dynamit AG Troisdorff, after analysing the inner structure of the Horten Va, a flying wing entirely built of synthetic material.

Perhaps Göring saw this technology the weapon that would allow the negotiation of an honourable peace, as that of 1918. A similar advantage to that obtained with the Stuka in 1939 or with the ‘Window’ in 1943. ‘Amerikabomber’ was just one of the three secret programs of Stealth bombers promoted by Göring.
 
Justo, do you know what/if German WW2 RF work carried over into the MBB Lampyridae? Was there an intermediate?
 
Was there any other European Lampyridae like program post WW2 before the modern F-X/UAV efforts?
 
Bill Bahret provides many insights into the early development of low observables, and mentions at least one previously undisclosed program from the 1960s:

William F. Bahret: The Cold War Aerospace Technology History Project (Interview 1)

William F. Bahret: The Cold War Aerospace Technology History Project (Interview 2)

W.F. Bahret, "The beginnings of stealth technology", 1993
Enjoyed the videos - straightforward conversation about what it was like and what else was going on around them. No nonsense man. Thanks - for posting.

Enjoy the Day! Mark
 
Also, I didn't notice, was the WW2 Yehudi lights program mentioned or the original haze blue scheme that used multiple hues of blue on the F-5 (Recon P-38)? Those were both early visual stealth programs.
 
My current list
MakeModelCirca
***PLACE HOLDER FOR LUFT'46 CONCEPTS THAT SEEM TO PREDICT FUTURE***1940
ConvairGEBO II concepts (early B-58 Hustlers)1949
LockheedU-2 "B-2" ( U-2 re-design based on RAINBOW lessons learned)1957
LockheedGUSTO I1957
ConvairFISH1958
LockheedARROW1958
LockheedGUSTO II1959
LockheedArchangel concepts1959
ConvairKingFISH1959
ConvairVarious "Beyond KingFISH" concepts1959
LockheedA-12 Blackbird1962
BoeingQuiet Bird1962
LockheedSR-71 Blackbird1964
LockheedD-21 TAGBOARD1964
Ryan4246-C ( View: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sdasmarchives/33697614023/in/photostream/
)
1966
RyanModel 244 (SANDY HOOK???):Tier II+???? (https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/th...ledyne-ryan-drones-rpvs-and-uavs.14318/page-2)1967
RyanAQM-91 Compass Arrow1968
DouglasAQUILINE1968
RyanLow Altitude Penetrator RPV Config 4 Model 147S-21971
RyanUnknown Low RCS UAV test vehicle in 1971 hearing1971
RyanModel 246 (PINE RIDGE???)1971
Rockwell"Surprise Fighter" 4-11972
North American"Silent Night Attack Aircraft"1973
North American"Flying Banana"1973
RyanModel 237 Low RCS Vehicle1974
LockheedHarvey1975
LockheedHopeless Diamond v11975
LockheedHopeless Diamond with wings single tail1975
RyanModel 262 'Manta Ray' STAR ("Mini-RPV"???)1976
General DynamicsCOLD PIGEON1976
General DynamicsATS / ASTEI / Sneaky Pete / HAVE KEY1976
RyanModel 268 XST; CASPR-D???1977
NorthropXST (N-327?)1977
LockheedHAVE BLUE1977
McDonnell DouglasHi-Altitude Mach 1.8 Penetrator 252-303A1977
General DynamicsSneaky Pete1977
Lockheed1978
BoeingATB / ASPA1978
NorthropHigh Altitude Penetrator (pre B-2 DARPA study)1979
NorthropLow Altitude Penetrator (pre B-2 DARPA study)1979
Other early B-2s; single chevron after inward canted tails were removed1980
General DynamicsModel 1001980
LockheedF-1171981
MBBLampyridae1981
General DynamicsHAVE KEY1981
NorthropTACIT BLUE1982
VoughtLOAVES1982
TestorsF-191986
DornierLa-20001986
RyanModel 324 Scarab1987
RyanModel 350 Peregrine (BQM-145)1988
Long Range Conventional Strike Weapon (LRCSM)1992
DenelFlowchart 2 UAV1994
DenelSeraph high-speed, mission adaptive UAV1995
McDonnell DouglasBird of Prey1996
LockheedRQ-3 Darkstar1996
McDonnell DouglasX-361997
DASA/EADS/MBBTDEFS1997
LockheedX-44A2001
BoeingX-452002
NorthropX-47A2003
LockheedPolecat2005
Northrop GrummanAdvanced Technology Survivability Demonstrator2008
NorthropX-47B2011
BoeingPhantom Ray2011

Some may get omitted if there is just not enough detail. Some I need to think about more to figure out if it is even worth it.

I would like to add more foreign designs to this list.

Some things I just have not added yet.

At some point I will need to reduce it down to a list that I could actually model in my lifetime! Cause this is already way beyond what I got time for. I'm thinking 10-20 that represent the most significant stepping stones.
***Note I really would like to 3D model the aircraft, so I have less desire to model ones that are already modeled to death and you can buy kits of right now (SR-71 and F-117 come to mind).***
 
Was there any other European Lampyridae like program post WW2 before the modern F-X/UAV efforts?
In August 1941, British researchers submitted a round of proposals for undetectable aircraft by RDF.

Their plan was to adjust the aircraft’s radiation to match the background level of radiation from the air around it.

Increasing the resistivity of the aircraft’s skin might short-circuit the radio wave.

During the Cold War, the British experimented with the use of German radar absorbing materials.

After 1945, Plessey Company was largely responsible for the new RAM technology.

In 1954 the trainer Boulton Paul Balliol WG 125 was covered with DX3 RAM coating for radar detection tests.

The DX3 was used with some success against Soviet radars operating on X-band

by British Canberra and Tornado RB-45 reconnaissance aircraft flying over the Soviet Union on ELINT missions.

In 1946, U.S. researchers did develop the RAM material MX-410 but it was prohibitively heavy and never entered use.

The RCS Handbook was published in the fifties but the Air Force chose the development of increasingly powerful jammers to defend its bombers from Soviet SAM missiles, this was a lost technological battle. After the disasters of Vietnam and Yom Kippur, caused mainly by the SAM-6 and SAM-7 missiles, American scientists decided to investigate the possibilities of the stealth configuration.

The next phase in the radar game would be to master the science of reducing radar returns.

The theoretical bases on the reflective properties of electromagnetic waves had already been developed by James C. Maxwell and Arnold J. Sommerfeld, but the diffraction problem did not seem to have a solution until 1971 when experts of USAF Systems Command Foreign Technology Division translated a paper on diffraction published in 1962 by the Russian physicist Piotr Ufimtsev.

Fortunately for Americans at the time, the computing power of their computers allowed Lockheed engineer Denys Overholser to make predictions about the reflection of electromagnetic waves on shapes limited to two dimensions.

After achieving this, all the work was limited to carrying out thousands of tests until the best possible stealth configuration was found.
 
Sounds like lots of RAM focus in the UK. No shaping over there? I thought BAe or someone had some interesting looking UAV concepts in the 70s or 80s?

Any Soviet projects to check out?
 
Some additional info here
 

Attachments

  • 298.jpg
    298.jpg
    799.5 KB · Views: 32
  • 299.jpg
    299.jpg
    301.9 KB · Views: 18
  • 300.jpg
    300.jpg
    525.1 KB · Views: 15
  • 301.jpg
    301.jpg
    216.4 KB · Views: 14
  • 302.jpg
    302.jpg
    405.4 KB · Views: 12
  • 303.jpg
    303.jpg
    309.3 KB · Views: 12
  • 304.jpg
    304.jpg
    1.1 MB · Views: 20
  • 305.jpg
    305.jpg
    1.3 MB · Views: 20
  • 306.jpg
    306.jpg
    1.5 MB · Views: 24
FYI, the "4246-C (" above for the Ryan artwork is the "photo negative" number and has nothing at all to do with the Ryan Model Number (if there is any, considering that this is concept art).
 

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom