>>64198770
Yeah yeah yeah I checked the wiki article after I posted too.
Ok so HAVE BLUE based itself on a 1967 paper that itself was further work from theoretical ideas going as far back as...1927? I believe? Or even earlier it depends on the scope of interrelated science research you're willing to consider.
>the whole story is grossly overblown
No the real story is as factually explicit as one csn get.
ANYWAYS the f-117 is a marvel, in hindsight, only in that the clowns of yesteryear were so limited in "mindscope" that they couldn't conceive smooth shape radar reduction completely in opposition to prior works (the yf-12 from 15 years earlier) showing certain smooth shapes and extension patterns proving rcs reduction within specific angle regimes.
Further, the F-117 can fundamentally be described as a plane intended to counter 1960s/70s grade SAMs, to which it excelled at, but in no way a miracle of research or science.
>the computers we had just couldn't do any better than flat angled plates even though we knew better was achievable
Pathetic. Absolutely fucking pathetic. I would not have stood for it if I were any man in a hot seat of control.
And it was still the only and most effective stealth craft of its era.
What you should take away from my ramblings is not the negative, but instead how my "hindsight 20/20" criticism shows of just how easy it actually is to make a major step forward.