That seems counter-intuitive to me, but a lot of the Stealth stuff is.From what I heard with Canards it makes a huge difference if they are in line with the wing or not, if you vertically offset them against the wing it massively reduces their return versus if they are mounted at the same level as the wings.
Isn't the point of stealth is to maximize return in specific angle but reducing the amount of angles?My guess is its because if at the same level they add to the wings effective area and the return increases my the radius of the surface area squared.
So canards as seen on j-20 or natf-23 would be stealthier than x-36 or early lockheed and mcdonnell JAST efforts?From what I heard with Canards it makes a huge difference if they are in line with the wing or not, if you vertically offset them against the wing it massively reduces their return versus if they are mounted at the same level as the wings.
Isn't the point of stealth is to maximize return in specific angle but reducing the amount of angles?
So canards as seen on j-20 or natf-23 would be stealthier than x-36 or early lockheed and mcdonnell JAST efforts?
No, the idea is to make it so that even in the spike angles, you have a lower return than a non-stealth aircraft.Isn't the point of stealth is to maximize return in specific angle but reducing the amount of angles?
Perhaps I worded badly but yes the point isn't to "maximize" RCS in specific angle but to "concentrate" which should have been the better word choice.No, the idea is to make it so that even in the spike angles, you have a lower return than a non-stealth aircraft.
No, the idea is to make it so that even in the spike angles, you have a lower return than a non-stealth aircraft.
This is impossible unless you have magical material that can absorb the entirety of the reflected energy, which depending on frequency can reach some 30-40 dB. Fortunately the physics of faceting can actually help here. Just think of the stealth aircraft like a flat plate antenna.
just material technique that reduces the returns of the the intentional rcs spikes. don't know how reliable it is.I have not watched the video, but if it is making claims about the magical properties of “FiberMat” I am already laughing.
A sad, sick laugh that descends into tears.
just material technique that reduces the returns of the the intentional rcs spikes. don't know how reliable it is.
don't have to watch whole video. I timestamped the relevant part in the link.
Just to understand you clearly - are you saying that there's no need to reduce these RCS spikes or that the spikes still gonna be there? The video doesn't refute that the spikes will be there.Yeah no.
Materials that defy the laws of physics are science fiction.
Intentional RCS spikes are… intentional! Because they are unavoidable. The energy has to go somewhere. Aircraft need leading and trailing edges, etc. At best, you can get this down to 4 spikes and make them very narrow, at which point it doesn’t matter if the spikes are very strong.
BTW still crying.
Anyway, back to canards!
Just to understand you clearly - are you saying that there's no need to reduce these RCS spikes or that the spikes still gonna be there? The video doesn't refute that the spikes will be there.
The video talks about technique to taper the releases of rcs as radio waves travel toward the edge of the aircraft not so much of any particular material that completely takes away the spikes. Are you saying the technique is BS or you're just talking about that magical fiber mat that made the round of news in 2010s
Agreed. I don't think the video claims otherwise.They will still be there.
no the video only claims the technique tapers the release of rcs as radio waves travels toward leading edge where the spike occurs leading to a weaker rcs spike at the leading edge.That sounds more like creeping waves and diffraction, which rarely create spikes. Diffraction certainly contributes to RCS, but rarely creates an individual "spike" visible on a polar plot. Again, this is difficult to express without creating illustrations.
if the spike is narrower than likely to hit a receiver that is in the rough direction of the spike, then yes, a narrower more intense spike is better than a wider spike that is at lower intensity.Agreed. I don't think the video claims otherwise.
no the video only claims the technique tapers the release of rcs as radio waves travels toward leading edge where the spike occurs leading to a weaker rcs spike at the leading edge.
Are you saying that reducing rcs of the spike is less important (or not important at all) than trying to make the "width" of the spikes narrower?
What about canards that can deploy or swing back to be flush with the wing?So much on "canards can't be stealth"!
RCS issues? Weight?What about canards that can deploy or swing back to be flush with the wing?
What about canards that can deploy or swing back to be flush with the wing?
From what I heard with Canards it makes a huge difference if they are in line with the wing or not, if you vertically offset them against the wing it massively reduces their return versus if they are mounted at the same level as the wings.
Right if they're inline with the wing should reduce as opposed to not at least in the frontal aspectThat seems counter-intuitive to me, but a lot of the Stealth stuff is.
The Soviet supersonic “Concordski” airliner had retractable canard “whiskers” that were only extended during low-speed flight. They helped compensate for delta wings notoriously draggy performance at slow airspeeds and high angles of attack.I can't think of too many examples of that.
there were the older F-14s, where the "canards" came out of the Lerx.
But they don't function like your modern day canards and later models seemed to have ditched them.