Message posted by Magoo on September 26, 2003 at 15:12:28 PST:
You're right about the compressor face of the engine being a big reflector. Both JSF prototypes had their engines well hidden deep inside their fuselages and the intake tunnels were curved so radar energy could not be reflected back out the front. The tunnels may have been lined with radar absorbant material (RAM) as well. I'm not sure how they got around the cockpit being a big reflector too - perhaps they're going to coat the glass with the indium tin oxide used for the F/A-22 as mentioned by MPJay in his post above. It's expensive stuff and may not have been applied to the prototypes. However, if I were a fighter pilot, I think I'd rather have 340 degree visibility than be tucked away inside an invisible cockpit a la F-117. Adding LO features to an airframe will almost always result in some kind of performance trade-off. * No vertical stabilizers means less directional stability. This can be countered with special wing control surfaces, but not totally. The YF-23 probably had the best solution for this, with 45 degree slanted combined vertical/horizontal stabilizers. Magoo
* IR suppressors in the engine exhaust can result in less efficient exit of air from the exhaust, slower acceleration and a lower Mach capability (e.g. F-117).
* Curved intake tunnels means slower and more disturbed air reaching the engines, resulting in lower Mach capability (e.g. B-1B).
* Some radar absorbant materials often require special maintenance, which means less 'deployability' (e.g. B-2). The F/A-22 is supposedly much more resilient!
In Reply to: Re: Good pickup posted by BASSic on September 26, 2003 at 13:59:31 PST:
Replies: