Are a rounded shapes good for stealth?

>>63955489 (OP)
No, round are not. They need to break anything too round with a "shelf"

>>63955489 (OP)
>tf when no shortstack gf

>>63955489 (OP)
>F-35: big and bulging
>J-35: tucked flat

>>63955489 (OP)
uuuooooohhhh..... f-35 belly erotic.... ;-;

>>63955489 (OP)
They are erotic and that is more important

Implessive

>>63955489 (OP)
They both look good than.

>>63955489 (OP)
>thrust provoking image
>irrevalent, time wasting question

>>63955489 (OP)
literally f-35 vagina. coomer designed this.

>>63955489 (OP)
>Are a rounded shapes good for stealth?
They are if you have sufficient computer power and can guarantee good factory QA and consistent airframe maintenance.

implessive. most implessive.

>>63955489 (OP)
>bugs copied the airforce logo because white guys did it
>bugs put a triangle at the intake because the white guys did it
the way they shamelessly copy but dont understand is so funny.
its like if i was handed a letter written in chinese characters and told to replicate it. i could probably make it look pretty similar but would have no idea what i just wrote

>>63956189
There's a reason they wear western suits and not some goofy ching chong emperor get up

>>63955521
>>63955535
>>63955541
>>63956133
>>63956145
Is this the male equivalent of women being attracted to dogs?

>>63956209
Careful saying that around the Saudis.

>>63956240
Are the saudi's chinese? I think calling them such would be far more offensive.

>>63956240
the saudis wear dresses because the sound of an unbuckling belt spooks goats

>>63955489 (OP)
DARKER!

>>63955489 (OP)
no, which is why the F35 has lots of complex faceting.
you can tell the chink ones don't have that, because they're not able to work out as complex a shape with their lack of experience designing stealth aircraft.
what's also good for stealth is a more radar seethrough or absorbent internal airframe composition, a good stealth coating, and a very clean exterior without any small bumps or miniature crevices in the exterior, possible through extremely tight quality control, none of which the chinese planes have.

>>63956286
>very clean exterior without any small bumps or miniature crevices in the exterior, possible through extremely tight quality control, none of which the chinese planes have.

>chinky is on his butthurt spamming spree again
Grim

>>63956296
yep, you just posted the image that i was describing, with far more complex faceting than the chinese aircraft.
if you were to get an up close image of both (which chinks try to avoid at all costs) you'd notice that the chink plane is full of little panel grooves (where the F35's are covered with material when not being maintained or used for airshows and such), exposed, non-flush screws and if you were to use a microscope, small bumps and divets that happen as a result of lesser quality control.

i understand what you meant when you posted this image though, i know it's very confusing and difficult for mentally ill chinkshills to understand what i'm talking about.

next time, if you want these things explained to you, just ask instead of doing your insecure pretend-smug chinkshill routine, alright champ?

>>63955489 (OP)
Makes me wonder how the rcs of the f22 stacks up to the f35 but I'm sure we'll never get fully declassified documents about the true ability of both planes.

>>63956315
You'd compensate too

>>63956236
no the male equivalent of that is wanting to fuck deer or tigers

>>63956328
more composite and other exotic materials on the F35 makes me think that it's probably a tiny bit more stealthy than the F22, though you're obviously hitting pretty diminishing returns at the RCS level where real stealth aircraft like the F22 and F35 are at.
what's more important about the F35's stealth is that it is significantly easier to maintain, which is the whole reason they're able to be exported in the first place.

>>63956133
Is that an Aerojet LR87?

>>63956346
I forget exactly what it was.
It was on display at the albuquerque nuclear museum. They had some neat stuff

>>63956407
I had to check, yeah they have a Titan II, I'm jelly as fuck.

I really wonder whether we're already nearing the limits of stealth, like isn't the RCS of the F22 or F35 the size of a bee or something?

>>63956346
What's the smaller double-ended dildo on the last three?
It looks sort of like a smaller booster but the bottom doesn't look like a nozzle.

>>63956434
It's the same engine as the first 4 rotated 90 degrees to make room for the huge solid boosters.

>>63956431
it's getting to the point where putting way more effort in is probably not worth the effort anymore, more important is baking it into the design and making the maintainance process as easy as and fast as possible, as well as working on stealthcoatings that do better at higher cruise speeds temperatures and more adverse environments

>>63956434
>>63956443
Sorry I'm retarded, just realized you are talking about the tank on the side of the SRBs. It's full of gas that gets injected into the SRB nozzle causing uneven thrust as a cheap and easy form of thrust vectoring.

>>63956431
Those RCS comparisons are only from the front. From the rear and the sides they're close to a clean 4/4.5th gen

>>63955489 (OP)
Yes, it helps the radar droplets slide off into the airstream rather than bouncing back towards the receiver.

>>63956334
>wanting to fuck deer
I think that's just /k/

>>63956319
>if you were to get an up close image of both (which chinks try to avoid at all costs)
Nothing pisses me off more than this.
This is the highest resolution image I could find of the J-35, and it's so noisy and compressed you can't make out any fine details.

>>63956319
>>63956687
and ofc I forgot the pic lmao

>>63956654
>Yes, it helps the radar droplets slide off into the airstream rather than bouncing back towards the receiver.
So the F-22's flat belly would bounce radar droplets back towards the receiver?

>>63956710
Only when it is flying directly above the radar

>>63956710
*Would*, yes. Lockmart glued a bunch of tiny sponges onto the F-22 as a workaround while they developed the tech for proper rounding for the F-35.

>>63956710
if you were to hit it with a radar radiation at a straight 90 degrees while it's doing that knife edge manouvre then yes. it would be the best possible aspect to get a radar lock on a stealth plane.

>>63955495
>>63955489 (OP)
CONVEX round shapes are perfect for stealth.
It's all about curvature.
Yes flat surface will reflect in "another direction" but eventually it risk reflecting radar wave exactly at one radar receiver.
But a round surface will spread the wave and diminish its strength.

The F-117 was made when we could only try the angular approach
The B-2 was made with 100% round shapes to avoid
The F-22 started doing both.

The danger is CONCAVE curvature. Those reflect radar wave closer back to the enemy.
A ball would be as stealthy as one can do. But good luck making that fly.

>>63957278
No, a shape that is too round will return the radar to the dish. Just look at the nose cone of the f35 and why they made it break like that.

>>63957312
>too round
Not even a thing. The F35 nose is pointy simply because it's more aerodynamic.
All that matter is whether the curvature is convex, concave, and what attitude you expect your aircraft to have when approaching a target.

Then there's compromise, you can't exactly make a flying cone as if you'll fly it constantly at one single radar.

Why don't they make the skin out of radar transparent material with a complex internal structure?

You could give the hull any shape required for optimal aerodynamics.

>>63957502
Because there is only so much radar (radio?) energy that it can absorb, depending on the thickness of the material. Even if you made the absorbent material 'crust' several inches thick all over your plane at some point you'd get diminishing returns.

Stealth is a balancing act between a variety of factors between materials, design and capability, and the ability to actually fly and be useful. You can have an aircraft that is incredibly stealthy and flies like a brick (like a B2 or F117) or is 'arguably' less stealthy and flies much better (F22/F35 etc) and so on.
Where this example falls down is where your stealth capabilities in both material and design get better over time which allows you to maintain an acceptable level of stealth (or better!) while getting a better aircraft out of the deal.

Its all about tradeoffs, but they can be mitigated with certain factors (such as considerable research into stealth and how to apply them)

>>63957342
>pointy simply because it's more aerodynamic
That's not the part of the geometry he's talking about.

>>63957502
>Why don't they make the skin out of radar transparent material with a complex internal structure?
Because that complex internal structure would light up light a fucking christmas tree if radar waves could freely pass through the skin.

>>63956461
>just realized you are talking about the tank on the side of the SRBs
Yeah.
Thanks anon.

>>63958149
>Because that complex internal structure would light up light a fucking christmas tree if radar waves could freely pass through the skin.
I think anon meant to do whatever RCS optimal shape, like a modernised F117, but cover it with a radar transparent faring to fix the stability and handling issues.
I don't think it's necessary but the idea might not be terrible.

>>63958193
>fix the stability and handling issues
Stability issues are synonymous with maneuverability. No one wants an ultra stable fighter jet.

>>63956690
are you too retarded to recognize that it's an AI enhanced pic.
keep coping and being retarded

>>63955489 (OP)
I think I finally understand why the japs like anthropomorphizing jets, and why you guys like those anthropomorphized jets.
Gosh dang

>>63956236
It requires years of study to refine one's skill in aeronautical abdominal engineering.

>>63955489 (OP)

>>63958992
>keep coping and being retarded
?
I'm literally bitching about the shitty quality
AI upscaled or not, it's ass

>>63956319
Being this smug when you're just regurgitating half-understood Wikipedia articles like everyone else in this thread is pathetic.
Especially when you're relying on just-so stories about magic military tech that is only used where no one can see it.

>>63956666
/k/ are also coyote fuckers.

>>63959586
you gonna cry?
also turns out yeah, 99% of what makes complex western stuff work is
>magic military tech that is only used where no one can see it
it's why you guys get so frustrated because hey, the J-20 LOOKS like a stealth aircraft, cause it's got EDGES n' shiet.
there are so many little details that go into giving a stealth aircraft a truly low radar return. but you can't use those to spam an image and smugly proclaim chinese superiority, so chinkshills don't do that.

>>63959746
>there are so many little details that go into giving a stealth aircraft a truly low radar return
List 10

>>63960414
i already listed a bunch previously, you can go read those. i don't really care about your arbitrary number of 10

>>63959299
>if you look closely, you will see !
>AI enhanced zoomed-in

Chinese planes simply aren't sexy.

>>63958139
Still what I meant
It's a sacrifice in the name of aerodynamic (and that fatass fan).
Your pic show it create flat-ish surface and concave angle/curvature that should Ideally be avoided at all cost.
But it's beyond complicated to only have "perfect shape" and still have a useful aircraft with air-intake, wings, internal fan, bomb, supersonic flight, let alone supercruise which require a finesse the F35 sacrificed.
Convex edge ARE good for stealth, but the ideal is still infinitely curved surface, even if you intend to be cruising most of the time and simply did this to thin the aircraft at least in one direction.

>>63960446
try actually reading my post you illiterate retard
>if you look closely, you will see
>nothing because the image is so noisy and compressed there's no detail

>>63957278
>A ball would be as stealthy as one can do.
No, the radar waves will travel along the surface of the ball, all the way round like a u-turn, and head straight back to the radar. This is literally stealth 101.

>>63960898
Wouldn't the radar waves collide on the far side of the ball and get all confused?

>>63961018
No, they just change polarization.

>>63961018
Waves don't collide, they interfere and continue to propagate.

>>63961122
But I see water waves colliding all the time?

>>63961213
That's the water colliding not the waves

>>63961517
reminder that the J-20 is not petite by any metric

>>63960618
>https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1lCOgFPtaZ4
You're utterly retarded. You still don't understand what that anon was talking about. Watch at 10:56

>Why don't they make the skin out of radar transparent material with a complex internal structure?
>You could give the hull any shape required for optimal aerodynamics.
Diminishing returns + weight issues; but that IS done for certain edges.
If you look at the intakes you'll see the sharp edges are a different panel than the rest. Those are radar transparent, with an advantageous conductive shape below. So you get great aerodynamics and good stealth characteristics. This is also done on the wing and tail edges.
Look up "leading edge treatments" if you wanna know more.

This is actually one of the details the Su-57 lacks entirely, which is a big part of why its a total fucking joke stealth-wise.

>>63961466
But the water is the waves, and the waves are battles, and the battles are waves...

>>63958209
>Stability issues are synonymous with maneuverability
I mean the handling issues of the F117.

>>63962370
An F-16 is just as uncontrollable without fly-by-wire. Modern fighter aircraft are designed to be unstable.

>>63962402
Can a modernised F-117 be graceful?

>>63963233
>implying it isn't already

>>63955489 (OP)
I bet she fucks like a fighter jet

>>63961568
>lanky flat Chinese girl
YES PLEASE

>>63960898
>>63961018
>>63961078
>>63961122
The creeping wave effect is minimal at low frequency and you need perfect curvature for it to happen at all, even >>63961670 video say a spherical shape is best. The guy in the video just wanted to look smart using jargon that only apply to literal pole shaped object.
The F-35 ridge is simply a mean to maintain convex edges while avoiding concave shapes at other place.
Same reason the F117 couldn't do better without ceasing to be an aircraft.
https://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/rb70.en.html

>>63965616
Jesus christ, you're literally illiterate. The video I posted literally says the contrary to what you said. Are you that desperate to save face after embarassing youself the whole thread?

>>63959106
It all goes back to the F102. They absolutely were not taking cues from coke bottles

>>63958193
This is more or less what I meant.

Internal structure to either deflect or trap the radar energy.

>>63958209
But they do want an efficient jet, and stealth is always a tradeoff.

>>63959746
Are you going to keep imagining that science fiction and reality are the same thing for the sake of your power fantasies?
You don't actually know anything about the topic you're discussing other than what you read on Wikipedia earlier, so you can't name specifics but rely on vague allusions to details that are beyond your understanding.
Stop larping as though you actually know what you're talking about.

>>63968256
Stop posturing with your F35-shill video made for casuals, I posted better material and you are ignoring it.
You can't even argue back.
That website already told you this effect is only significant at low frequency and with pretty strict requirement to begin with.

Have more:
https://assets.cambridge.org/97811070/92617/excerpt/9781107092617_excerpt.pdf
>The shaping must comply with the aerodynamic requirements of the vehicle (e.g. aircraft,
missiles, ships, etc.). If the nose of the missile could be made round instead of pointed, the
specular reflections would be reduced considerably.

Creeping wave is last on the list and more a matter of material and paint to prevent the phenomena in the first place.
It's like being concerned by cylindrical missiles under the wings when the fuck huge echo come from the combination of pylon and wings sending back radar waves 180° around back at the radar.
Or like being stupidly desperate to avoid "round shape" that you create a large flat surface.

The only one who feel a need to save face here is you, nice ad hominem anon.

>>63969338
>conveniently goes from claiming cilinders are better for rcs to spheres
I accept your defeat