Sure, and if actual real life planes were only these 2 dimensional shapes the sweeping conclusions about RCS you’ve been drawing using this diagram might be more valid.
H-20 bomber (with H-X, JH-XX)
- Thread starter Deino
- Start date
Well, I'm sure engineers at NG knows alot more than me and there is probably a very good reason they decided to use the same idea when it comes to planform twice in a row for a highly stealthy bomber. If you don't trust me atleast trust them.
Yeah, try getting away from a flight of pursuing J-36 (replete with multidomain kill web) in your slow subsonic flying wing.
And initially you said “It is worse than pointless and downright retarded” — are you a genius, and the USAF chief scientist is a retard? (…how many times do I have to bring up that study I’ve previously linked, on future air combat survivability trends…)
It's simplified but there are many reasons why nearly all RCS studies are done using 2d polar plots rather than 3d contour ones, and why planform is regarded to be so important. It's not entirely incorrect to have these kinds of conclusions, when in practice this type of comparison gives the best rudimentary comparison for such a complex topic.
Because there are so little studies done on 3d contour plots, if we want to form actual arguments, the 2d plots visualize the theory the best.
Sometimes the decision is more about ease of engineering than realizable performance results.
We are not discussing theory. We are discussing extrapolations of theory onto real world performances. There’s a massive chasm here between point A and Z in the argument that people are all too comfortable overlooking.
What made you come to this conclusion? It could simply be maybe just maybe that planform is in fact the most optimal for stealth.
I do agree with your overall sentiment, there isn't much proof that describes that the other planforms can absolutely not provide similar radar reductions across the spectrum if the 3d shape was designed correctly. However Tomboy's conclusions are not unwarranted, the US is and has been leading the pack in term of stealth technologies and is known to be rigorous with it's requirements. With the B-21 Raider being the USAF premier air penetration bomber I doubt they would simply put ease above performance. With research spanning over 4 decades yet the B-21 retains the same general planform as the original B-2, it's hard to overlook that in the basic 2d polar plot, layout D's planform showcases the best performance, while in practice the world leader in stealth technology uses Layout D time and time again.
You aren't getting away from them by speed alone whe you're detected. BVRAAM is faster, and it doesn't really need J-36 for that, J-16 will do.
You can dart in and out faster than system can respond, but the only positive difference will be if it sees you regardless of your stealth. Otherwise, subsonic VLO will be detected later. And if it's this kinda of all-seeing radar network, you still won't go for supersonic design, but rather for something like low altitude dart Blitzo mentioned several pages ago.
Sure, but it is often also the case that when your requirements are more demanding you go with the most conservative approach that is available to you to reduce risk and cost.