Jump to content
tanknet.org

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Even Canada is getting onto the stealth bandwagon in their own way of course.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/gonzo/the-secret-stealth-snowmobile-canada-wont-let-you-see-15835701

 

No picture as it is a top secret project.

Speaking of Canada, i remember reading in a british aviaton magazine, how the (then) new F-18, found very difficult to adquire in their radars the old (and surprisingly stealthy) Starfighters...

Edited by ramontxo
Link to post
Share on other sites

The Eurofighter IS stealthy. Alright it doesnt look it, but it does by some reports feature some Radar absorbent material along the leading edges and round the air intake. Its less an effort to make it a pure stealth fighter, than reduce its detectability from front from longer ranges.

 

Apparently one of the smallest radar cross sections was found to be the BAE Hawk. Right up to the point when you start hanging stuff on it.

 

So something I've always wanted to know is if you take a stealthy airframe like a raptor and hang a stealthy weapon off it like a storm shadow, is the end result still stealthy or does the interaction between the weapon and the airframe mess it all up somehow.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder whether the trend is to embed missiles into the body of the aircraft instead of putting them on pylons. Separation at high speed is an issue of course, but I'm thinking of how the Tomcats used to carry their AIM-54 underneath their fuselage. I could see re-manufacturing weapons to maker their carriage more stealthy. For example, shorter fins or replacing them with thrust-vectoring.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not very easy with bombs, but missiles have been envisaged for some years being launched from boxes or containers, which presumably would then be jettisoned.

 

 

;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The Eurofighter IS stealthy. Alright it doesnt look it, but it does by some reports feature some Radar absorbent material along the leading edges and round the air intake. Its less an effort to make it a pure stealth fighter, than reduce its detectability from front from longer ranges.

 

Apparently one of the smallest radar cross sections was found to be the BAE Hawk. Right up to the point when you start hanging stuff on it.

 

So something I've always wanted to know is if you take a stealthy airframe like a raptor and hang a stealthy weapon off it like a storm shadow, is the end result still stealthy or does the interaction between the weapon and the airframe mess it all up somehow.

 

 

That interaction mess it all in a big way, especially in stealth designs that depend on reflection of the radar energy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I vaguely recall a concept sketched up by General Dynamics in the 1980s (?) which was a tankbuster version of the F-16. It had a launch tube integral to the fuselage (and fairly conformal, at that) and some kind of internal magazine for AT missiles. The idea being to build a few hundred of these little rascals to stop the Soviet Hordes in Europe. I canna find mention of it on Gooogle, but I'm almost 10% sure this occurred in reality and not just my fertile imagination.

 

Another option is missiles and launchers that are inherently conformal. Again, operating from memory of past artist's concepts, a missiles with a flat upper surface can mate to a carriage with a flat bottom surface, both having RCS treatment. Fins are stowed within the missile body, deployed upon launch. Gain is both in less aero drag and less RCS.

Link to post
Share on other sites

PAK-FA

 

I presume that those two visible underwing stores points are there for instrumentation?.

Looking at the above photo, there are two large internal stores localations, is there a requirement (currently) for the PAK FA to have external underwing pylons?.

 

Charles

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a related note, I would point out that infamous serial blogger Glen Cambell (he of the UFOMIND website, not the Wichita Lineman fame) has updated his blog to draw attention to the US Government acknowledging that Area 51 does actually exist after all.

http://area51looseends.blogspot.co.uk/

 

 

Been thinking about that since I heard the news. Wonder if they have a new spot somewhere on the globe where they test their black programs, and if so, how long ago they moved testing to the new spot.

 

Artist impression of a RQ-170 Sentinel. Supposedly the type of craft that went down over Iran.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...