Aircraft Vs Super Thread! 2

[Skull Leader]

And there's always the Super Hornet's Whisper Pass™ 

386556[/snapback]

Well, when one takes into consideration the noise a Super Hornet USUALLY makes, the Whisper Passâ„¢ can't get much quieter!

Far more impressive is the near-supersonic pass that you feel about two heartbeats before you actually hear it, when it goes from really quiet to all hell breaking loose. At the Ft. Smith airshow last week, I was dead-convinced that the Super Hornet demo team and the Strike Eagle demo team were out to one-up each other in this respect! Made for an impressive show though.

Edited April 1, 2006 by Skull Leader

[Phalanx]

Visually, both the SR-71 and B-2 dump chemicals into their exhaust when on missions so that they don't leave contrails.  If you've ever read any "chemtrail" conspiracy theories, that fact is incredibly ironic.  Also the B-2 is grey because that's what blends in.  If you've ever seen footage, that grey is the perfect color at altitude.   

386546[/snapback]

So does that pretty much epitomize why the F-117 and B-2 engines are turbofans with vents so that it can reduce their heat signature? Also when you say that the B-2 is painted grey because it blends in at high altitudes, is it because of the small layer of RAM painted on the airframes surface, since I take it that RAM polymer is grey? If that was the case with the B-2, wouldn't it be logical to take some B-2's and paint some of them light blue for daytime surgical bombing runs, whitish grey, for rainy and snow environments during the day or that will that not work because the normal layers of colores paint will mess up the thin layer of RAM? I always assumed that the B-2 was painted greyish black because I believe that it was optimized soley for night time bombing campaign missions since 99.9% of the time, you hear about it completing night bombings.

[kalvasflam]

There is a good reason why stealth flies at night. You have to think back to when these things were developed and what their original missions were.

The 117s were going to be used in special deep tactical strikes. The Spirits was the next evolution of SAC primary bomber, originally designed to seek out and destroy mobile ICBMs that the Soviets had developed, oh, not to mention the possibility of launching a nice decapitation strike against the Soviet command structure. Think of it, the start of a nuclear war would be B83s delivered by B-2 (117s don't have the range) dropped directly on the Kremlin. What were they (stealth) faced against? The design requirements said that they were faced with the most formidable air defense system in the world that combined SAM belts backed by radar guided AAA, along with a massive number of fighter interceptors. Night mission would be ideal, you reduce the chance of a visible sighting dramatically. If you see just how big the B-2 really is, you'd know that visual detection is one of its biggest problems, once seen, a plane can simply drive on over and paste it with its cannons. Why bother wasting a missile. B-2 and the F-117 are as manueverable as a pig, and they're subsonic.

The motto of the stealth community is always "we own the night," why? Because they could never last against a real fighter once sighted visually. And when you're talking about a billion dollar plane going to drop a nuke on someone, you don't take the chance on something like a novice flying a Mig-21 seeing you visually and then filling your plane full of holes with his machine guns.

[David Hingtgen]

My comment about the B-2 WAS for daylight. Trust me, 36118 Gunship Grey is the perfect color for a B-2 at 50,000ft in daytime. There's a reason almost every USAF bomber is that color.

Old RAM paint is black, I don't know about new stuff. There's the black "paint in a bucket", the new sprayable stuff, the sheets (which are mostly black), the "quilts" which I have no idea what color they are, and the stuff on the F-16 and Legacy Hornet. Kind of surprising that RAM's never been seen on an F-15. Then there's structural RAM, which is generally the same color as the non-stealthy version of it--kevlar, carbon fiber, etc.

The F-22's paint is the subject of much debate. Officially, it's exactly the same colors and paint as on the 1980's F-15, F-18, etc. Never mind the fact that it's prismatic silver in most light... Here's a really neat recent photo that'd be a great background---I was going to post it yesterday anyways as neat photo of the week:

http://www.defenselink.mil/transformation/...F-2295B-035.jpg

F-22 wins the "least colorful fighter EVER" award. That's the full markings for the 94FS, my fave F-15 squadron. Well, F-22 squadron now. PS--never mind that they look metallic silver, the Air Force says it's the same paint as the F-15's had...

Edited April 1, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[Phalanx]

Night mission would be ideal, you reduce the chance of a visible sighting dramatically.  If you see just how big the B-2 really is, you'd know that visual detection is one of its biggest problems, once seen, a plane can simply drive on over and paste it with its cannons.  Why bother wasting a missile. B-2 and the F-117 are as manueverable as a pig, and they're subsonic.

The motto of the stealth community is always "we own the night," why?  Because they could never last against a real fighter once sighted visually.  And when you're talking about a billion dollar plane going to drop a nuke on someone, you don't take the chance on something like a novice flying a Mig-21 seeing you visually and then filling your plane full of holes with his machine guns.

386646[/snapback]

OK, Kalvasflam but if that was the problem, has the USAF ever considered adding some sort of defensive gun system to the airframe of the B-2 as a secondary defense if the aircraft is spotted visually and came under attack by a swarm of MIG's because I always thought that it would be a good idea for a bomber plane to have some sort of offensive/defensive countermeasure to protect itself in combat. I really wouldn't like to fly a military aircraft whether it be a fighter, bomber or cargo transporter without any weapons. Also IMHO, I feel that that's what all stealth bomber planes should have since WW2 bombers have gun turrets for protection against enemy planes.

[Mislovrit]

OK, Kalvasflam but if that was the problem, has the USAF ever considered adding some sort of defensive gun system to the airframe of the B-2 as a secondary defense if the aircraft is spotted visually and came under attack by a swarm of MIG's because I always thought that it would be a good idea for a bomber plane to have some sort of offensive/defensive countermeasure to protect itself in combat.

HMGs and light autocannons have too short of range to be of use, nevermind making the aircraft even more complex, heavy (reducing amount of ordnance and fuel) and costly implementing in the systems. Secondary once the guns start shooting then all of the hostiles in the areas know you're there.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Not to mention that having a turret bulge and barrels sticking out can't be good for stealth. And having them fixed like in a Raptor would be dumb since the B2 can't dogfight.

Having the turret pop-up would have insane weight penalties too.

[David Hingtgen]

My main point would be it's pointless. If you see a B-2, then it's obviously within visual and gun range. Which means it's also close enough to get a missile lock on from just outside the B-2's gun range. Blast away from afar.

No plane is so stealthy or has so little engine heat that an F-15 or something couldn't lock on when it's that close. Radar reflection goes up with the cube of the distance--- 3 times closer is 27 times the strength. 5 miles vs 25 miles means 125 times stronger signal. It doesn't matter if a B-2 has 1/1000 the signal return of a normal plane--once you get close the reflection will increase exponentially.

And at that range, a Sidewinder can lock onto anything that's decently warm. Plenty of trains in Vietnam were taken out by Sidewinders locked on to the locomotives.

An F-117 or B-2 is "invisible to most radars in search mode at a distance". They are not "invisible to a high power air-to-air radar in tracking mode at close range".

Stealths are supposed to not be found in the first place, as they have no defense when found. It's very easy to hide when no one knows you're there, and are far away. But no matter how stealthy you are, a dedicated search of a small area where something is known to be will find you.

[jadefalconguard]

Also take into account that during the opening night of Desert Storm Ah64 Apachers carved a path into Iraq to further assure the 'stealth' capacities of the F-117.

The B-2 is a beautifull plane I think, but it still is a bomber that is no match to any decent fighter. As pointed out they are supposed to not be found

[Phalanx]

Well David I mean you no disrespect but I didn't say anything about B-2's being stealthy enough that missles can't home in on it, but I was just strictly saying that I think that it may be a good idea to have some sort of effective defense method just to be even more safe in the somewhat likelyhood event that you just so happened to be detected or the stealth fails so that you can be ready to defend yourself while trying to evade enemy radar and hostiles. I know that 99.9% of the time, stealth planes successfully complete their mission without being shot down with the exception of that one F-117 that went down over Kosovo but like I said before, it would be best to have some defensive weapons just to be even more safe and give the pilots peace of mind.

[Nied]

Well David I mean you no disrespect but I didn't say anything about B-2's being stealthy enough that missles can't home in on it, but I was just strictly saying that I think that it may be a good idea to have some sort of effective defense method just to be even more safe in the somewhat likelyhood event that you just so happened to be detected or the stealth fails so that you can be ready to defend yourself while trying to evade enemy radar and hostiles. I know that 99.9% of the time, stealth planes successfully complete their mission without being shot down with the exception of that one F-117 that went down over Kosovo but like I said before, it would be best to have some defensive weapons just to be even more safe and give the pilots peace of mind.

386736[/snapback]

Bomber mounted guns have become less and less useful as time has gone by to the point where even the ultra observable B-52 has had it's tail gun removed to save weight. In your scenario a B-2 would be better served by advanced ECM (DIRCM or towed decoys) than a gun.

[Nied]

And then "stealth" usually has people talk only about radar, when heat is another big factor.  People often talk about the F-22 for that, for if you're supercruising you've probably got a lot of heat on you leading edges, and the raw heat of the engines heating up the aft fuselage skin.  And then there's age-old "radio silence" which is part of the reason for in-air datalinks etc.  Stealth is supposed to mean ALL aspects of detection, but usually just means radar in common usage.

386476[/snapback]

I forget which book I have that says this, but the F-22 s supposed to have special paint that attenuates it's IR emmisions to a frequency that scatters quickly in the atmosphere. I can't imagine how that couldn't be related to that weird metalic sheen Raptors have.

[Coota0]

I was just strictly saying that I think that it may be a good idea to have some sort of effective defense method just to be even more safe in the somewhat likelyhood event that you just so happened to be detected or the stealth fails so that you can be ready to defend yourself while trying to evade enemy radar and hostiles.

386736[/snapback]

But that is the point of stealth. Stealth is the defense, B-52s (originally) flew highand fast and had a tailgun, B-1s are semi-low observable and fly really low and fast as a defense, B-2s are stealthy and hard to see, that's their defense. If the Stealth fails it's because there was a major screwup, when planning a mission the pilots avoid as many radar sites as possible and to avoid any known fighter CAPs. It's not like stealth is a switch you turn on to lose it you must change the shape of the aircraft, usually that's not going to happen unless bomb doors refuse to clos or the aircraft is dmanaged. The aircraft won't be damaged unless an enemy fighter plows into the B-2. Even if an enemy fighter managed to pick up a B-2 there's a good chance the pilot would thinl it was just a radar ghost without ground radar also having a contact. But just for the sake of argument we'll say a B-2 gets picked up by a couple of MiGs on the first night of Desert Storm...The F-15s had already pushed across the border the B-2 crew would have called in to the E-3 with thier problem, the E-3 would have tasked a couple if Eagles to come to the rescue and you would've had a race to see who could get a firing solution on who first. Wow, this turned out to be longer than I thought it would.

[kalvasflam]

Yep, it would be a good idea to mount guns on the B-2s. I'm sure the designers of those aircraft were complete idiots, and never thought of this idea. Phalanx, you need to go and design some real life bombers, show those neophytes hows it's done. Pack it full of defensive guns, and see how well the USAF accept those planes.

Historically, guns on bombers became obsolete a long time ago. The last time you really had action with turreted weapons en mass was during WWII. Bombers packed themselves in tight formation over Europe and Japan, and guess what, they still suffered horrible losses from fighters over enemy territory. Defensive firepower notwithstanding.

The entire point of having an invisible bomber is to be invisible. No bomber can ever survive a straight up fight with a fighter. That sort of stuff usually happen in cartoons and fantasies.

Edited April 2, 2006 by kalvasflam

[Phalanx]

Yep, it would be a good idea to mount guns on the B-2s.  I'm sure the designers of those aircraft were complete idiots, and never thought of this idea.  Phalanx, you need to go and design some real life bombers, show those neophytes hows it's done.  Pack it full of defensive guns, and see how well the USAF accept those planes.

386820[/snapback]

Thanks Kalvasflam, I plan on being an aerospace engineerer and I'm working to get my degree in that field. I think that you should get a career in the aerospace industry since Gaijin recommended that to me when I started my chiildish topic about Japan should start making fighter's based off the designs in anime. Also Kalvas, you said that the last time bomber planes had gun turrets was back during WW2, it turns out that the B-58 Hustler was actually the last bomber to have turrets. It was actually a cannon with a flexible nozzle mounted on the back but Boeing got rid of it because the aircraft flies too fast for the bullets to hit any pursuing fighters. The factor that contributed to all those bombers being shot down during WW2 was the fact that their size and lack of manuverablity was what made them easy targets and prone to getting shot down. I think that adding a rear mounted mini-missle system to the design of the B-2 would be rational since they have greater range than machine gun rounds as well as that idea Nied had about an advanced ECM system. Or evn better, if technologically feasible, add mini vernier jets along the hull of the aircraft to give the B-2 decent maneuverabilty to dogfight.

Edited April 2, 2006 by Phalanx

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

So anyone preorder the FOV black knights F-14A? looks to be the best diecast tomcat with swap gear! There is also a VF-41 version coming out. There are pics at topgun.jp but they are pretty hard to find(that site is confusing to navigate!)

And kaivasflam that was the funniest thing I have heard yet! L O L

[Coota0]

Also Kalvas, you said that the last time bomber planes had gun turrets was back during WW2, it turns out that the B-58 Hustler was actually the last bomber to have turrets.

386828[/snapback]

No he didn't.

Historically, guns on bombers became obsolete a long time ago.  The last time you really had action with turreted weapons en mass was during WWII.

386820[/snapback]

In other words he believes they became obsolete after WWII, not that they were no longer being placed on aircraft.

B-17s were being knocked down in droves for multiple reasons:

1) Daylight bombing- more accurate, but it made the bombers easy to attack

2) USAAC generals that believed there was no need to have escorts

3) The Germans had been flying for years in combat when the first USAAC aircraft came to Europe, their air force was badass.

4) Lack of range/ limited ammo for gunners

5) No frontal defensive coverage

Solutions used

1) Start sending escorts with bombers

2) P-51

3) Add gun to "chin" of B-17

4) B-29 A)Flew higher than enemy aircraft and AAA

B)Better bomb targeting system

C)Change of defensive armament and employment

Edited April 2, 2006 by Coota0

[Zentrandude]

In other words he believes they became obsolete after WWII, not that they were no longer being placed on aircraft.

I remember hearing airforce one has hidden gun turrets that pop out but its just a rumor.

[David Hingtgen]

That's pretty fanciful. It's equally likely to have lasers, railguns, and micro-missiles, as pop-out turrets.

Basically--there's no seams or openings for them. Air Force One's seams/panels/rivets are identical to a normal 747-200B, except for some apparent armor/reinforcement for the forward cabin. (Where the president's room is)

Though the real question is---what's in the belly. That's the biggest unknown part of the plane. With little cargo to hold, there's lots of room for mods. There's 2 sets of retractable stairs installed, and possibly an elevator at the rear, but that's all that's really known. (Though the odds are good there's a very large cooler/fridge/food storage area down there as well, possibly with its own elevator---the main galley is HUGE and would require as much food storage as a small restaurant)

Edited April 2, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[Knight26]

man I really should weigh in on this but the topic of turrets on the Stealth has already been covered pretty well. As for what is on AF-1, well I could tell you, we had an older out here briefly and a few of us snuck onboard. Let me say a couple things that are not FOUO, there is no escape pod, there is a massive galley, lots of extra fuel, lots of extra food. Remember in case of major war, like nuclear, AF1 was to be able to remain airborne a heck of a long time, hence the in air refueling capability, but you can't transport food via the fuel boom. So there are a great deal of extra provisions onboard. There is no press aboard AF-1, again that is a movie thing. There is a small seating area for a very select few reporters, but that is a very small room and most of the press corps rides in a seperate aircraft.

[buddhafabio]

I would assume the only defence that air force 0ne has is electrical radar jamming, flares and chaff. anything else is probably classified and we wont know what else for 50 years +

[David Hingtgen]

I doubt flares and chaff---nothing's visible. There's IR jammers for each engine and APU, they're clearly visible. But that's no different than many other VIP jets. (Though Air Force One is among the few that has one for the APU)

Also, flares and chaff only really work if you can get out of the way. No point in dropping flares then sitting where you were---the missile's track won't change much. While 747's are more agile than you'd think, they can't move out of the way enough to make use of most countermeasures. An F-15 can drop flares then move quickly over and the missile will miss it by 50 feet. But on a plane with a 200ft span, that just means the missile hits wing rib #20 instead of #14.

Finally---a 747 has the biggest radar signature on the planet, no amount of chaff is going to attract a missile off the greatest target a missile could ever have. Similar for flares---four 56,000lb thrust engines produce a lot of heat. A flare is intense, but small. IR jammers work in a totally different way so they actually work for a plane like that---which is why you they're used on VIP planes.

Edited April 3, 2006 by David Hingtgen

[Skull Leader]

The hangar we use out at Boeing to restore the B-29 I'm working on is attached to the hangar where they bring the Airforce one jets (there are more than one of them) to work on. I've seen one here one time, but they tend to bring them in and fly them out late at night for obvious reasons.

A group of us tried to walk over and get a look at the plane, but the security guys (brought over from the McConnell AFB side of the runway, packing serious heat too) met us about halfway and more or less told us that if we value our lives, we'd do an "about-face" and walk the other direction.

*sigh* they're the same way about the laser test 747s they house here at Boeing. I've got a pic or two, but nothing worth writing home about.

[David Hingtgen]

Want really good, really close pics of Air Force One? Check airliners.net for pics taken in foreign nations. You can get REAL close when it's not in the US, ironically. There's even pics of it from planes flying OVER it. Europe and Australia seem to be the best places by far to get close.

Same situation as the F-117. Even recently I've had guards tell me off for taking pics from 100 ft away, but you can go buy a panel-by-panel walk around book... (And the next week, that same plane will show up at a different air show, only they'll have a stand set up so you can climb up and get really good, close shots of it)

There's a zillion close-up photos out there of every plane out there, but they just don't want YOU to take any.

F-22: They're not going to let you take pics any time soon at an airshow, even though there's ultra-super close pics at every jet photo site on the net showing better detail than you could ever hope to get with a non-pro camera.

[Phalanx]

This question is for Knight 26 and Skull leader. Since you guys are fighter pilots do you guys know if the YF-23 is going to enter service anytime soon with the F-22? It would be a shame to see N.Grummans stealth masterpiece go to waste with no use in service.

Edited April 3, 2006 by Phalanx

[Knight26]

Um, first off I am not a fighter pilot, I am a Flight Test Engineer, big difference, I'm smarter and better looking for starters, lol. ANyways the YF-23 will likely never enter service. Despite the fact that so many of us love it here that is just a pipe dream unfortunately.

[Guest Bromgrev]

B-17s were being knocked down in droves for multiple reasons:

1) Daylight bombing- more accurate, but it made the bombers easy to attack

2) USAAC generals that believed there was no need to have escorts

3) The Germans had been flying for years in combat when the first USAAC aircraft came to Europe, their air force was badass.

4) Lack of range/ limited ammo for gunners

5) No frontal defensive coverage

Solutions used

1) Start sending escorts with bombers

2) P-51

3) Add gun to "chin" of B-17

4) B-29 A)Flew higher than enemy aircraft and AAA

            B)Better bomb targeting system

            C)Change of defensive armament and employment

386874[/snapback]

An even better solution: use a DeHavilland Mosquito with no defensive guns, go in fast and low and at night, carrying the same bomb load as a B17.

Defensive guns have never really been effective even while they were fashionable. If an interceptor is within machinegun (or even 20mm cannon) range, it's really up to him whether you get shot down or not. All that extra weight just slows you down and makes you a bigger target. Probably makes the crew feel better, though.

[kalvasflam]

WWII, now that was some history that aviation buffs can sink their teeth into.

The nighttime bombing raids at that time was real tricky business. I don't think most of those planes had radars in the early days, and they did it entirely by compass and timing at first, before going to radar. Back then, blackouts actually meant something. But then after a while, both sides started countering with night time fighters, some times guided by radars on the ground, others I believe had radars of their own.

The good old days, I just read a book about the Marianas Turkey shoot, it was very interesting history. The largest carrier battle ever, and for all that, it was a complete whiff in terms of actual tonnage sunk. Heck, subs did far more than carrier aircraft in that episode. Someday, sombody ought to make an anime about WWII Pacific campagin..... ha ha ha ha.

[Phalanx]

Funny that you guys should bring up the DH 98 Mosquito because aerospace historian experts say that this was actually the first STEALTH plane ever because it's airframe was made of wood and since it had no radar cross section as a result of this, I t was optimized for both day and night bombing raids.

P.S. I saw this information on a show called Top 10 Bombers on the Military channel.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

YA know in my old super thread, we barely mentioned beloved WW2 birds.

As a relative newcomer in the 1/18 scale collecting community, I am thrilled that 21st and BBi still continue to pump out some 1/18 birds.

What are your fav Ww2 fighters? And for the sake of nostalgia...

ME-109 vs P-51

P-51 vs P-47

Spitfire vs Seafire

Corsair vs Hellcat

Discuss!

oh yea...

Stuka vs Sturmovik...which was the more capable attacker?

and 21st just released their retooled P-51.....competition with BBI's P-51 is high...so far I have heard the dihedrehal on the 21st one is superior but the BBI one is still holding ground.

*Btw boys, 21stcenturytoys.com's AREA 51 fan club just announced that they will unveil the FIRST pics of their upcoming 1/18 MIG-15 and F-86 next weekend!*

Edited April 3, 2006 by Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0

[Garou Kuroryuu]

I totally go with Skull Leader and Knight.

Modern bombers don't rely on defensive weapons for protection, but on undetection tech (stealth features being one of them).

- Avoiding radar detection, either by stealth design, RAM, radar-jamming or radar-coverage avoidance. Even better if all us3ed together, either by the plane itself or with other planes' support (EC-130, E-3, EA-6B).

- Avoiding IR detection, mosly by reducing exhaust gases temperature, or placing the engine nozzles over the main airframe (like the YF-23 did). I've read of a couple of ways to reduce exhaust gases heat. One is by "refrigerating" the gases before they leave the nozzle, and the other one is "wrapping" the hot gases with a cool "pipe" of air. Strangely, this is something the airlines do, AFAIK, since the design of the newest airliner engine gondoles have this "cool exhaust" about half the length of the gongole. This also helps reduce the noise of the engine. I think this could be used by the A-10, since it's more prone to be shot at from portable IR-seeking SAM's and it already got airliner-like engine gondoles.

- Avoiding visual detection. Well, fly at night (better if clouded and no visible moon) and use black paint. Mate gray is also usefull, if day-time flight is unavoidable.

- Avoiding noise detection. Reduce the noise of the engines and, if possible, don't fly supersonic. The boom might be heard AFTER the planes passes over a place, but it deffinitively tells everybody a plane just passed.

Overall, modern bombers don't (and won't, as I see it) carry defensive weapons any more. If detected, the only options a bomber has are:

- Run as fast as the plane can from the hot spot.

- Pray he won't be catched upon by any fighter in the vecinity.

- Pray any counter-measure the plane carries is worth the bucks it costs.

[Skull Leader]

This question is for Knight 26 and Skull leader. Since you guys are fighter pilots do you guys know if the YF-23 is going to enter service anytime soon with the F-22? It would be a shame to see N.Grummans stealth masterpiece go to waste with no use in service.

387087[/snapback]

LOL, you're giving me *WAY* too much credit. I'm a graduate student working on a music performance degree. I volunteer with a crew helping to restore an old bomber, and about as close as I'm going to get to become a fighter pilot is being plane captain for the F-14 I take care of in Tulsa.

That said, there have been plenty of rumors about the YF-23 being pulled out of storage and re-evaluated, no idea how far they'll take it though. Just about everyone agrees that the YF-23 outperformed the 22, so I imagine the holdup is money.

[Shin Densetsu Kai 7.0]

Ace Combat Zero comes out later this month but someone already converted the music tracks from the game into Mp3 format here.

http://jeff.ali213.net/ACZero/index.htm

Sounds much more dramatic than 4 and 5. If anything its like Ace combat 4/5's music smacked with metal gear solid. Pretty good IMHO! I like the juggernaut song a LOT!

[David Hingtgen]

Most recent pic out there of YF-23 #2 shows the wings have been removed---that's not a minor operation, they would have had to have a good reason.

Also---as was mentioned, a lot of the ways to reduce IR signature is the same way to reduce noise, which airliners have been doing for years. Heat=noise (since wattage/power=decibels). Literally, jet noise is the noise of hot air being rapidly introduced into a cooler environment----same as lightning.

[Apollo Leader]

Most recent pic out there of YF-23 #2 shows the wings have been removed---that's not a minor operation, they would have had to have a good reason. 

Also---as was mentioned, a lot of the ways to reduce IR signature is the same way to reduce noise, which airliners have been doing for years.  Heat=noise (since wattage/power=decibels).  Literally, jet noise is the noise of hot air being rapidly introduced into a cooler environment----same as lightning.

387190[/snapback]

Is this the one that Northrop is allegedly converting into their "Strike Black Widow II" proposal?