What's wrong with this?

This isn’t an argument, just a question …

It’s my understanding that placing an air intake on top of a fighter would be good for reducing RCS, by shielding the engine from ground-based radar without the need for a curved intake.

But, it’s also my understanding that placing an air intake on top of a fighter would be bad for aerodynamics and that’s why such a configuration has never been built (as far as I know).

However, I came across a website (http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/ gripen/39altern/altdesigns.html) that shows various configurations that were considered for the Saab Gripen. And this one had a top-mounted intake.

Here’s a quote from the site: “The version most likely to compete with the canard layouts had a dorsal intake, which meant a short and straight duct. Wind tunnel tests showed that it would work well at high angles of attack and that 2107 had better turning performance than 2105. Saab judged the risks with the dorsal intake as too large.”

Well, what was the big risk if wind tunnel tests showed it would work at high AoA?

Basically my question is this: Why wouldn’t an intake like this be practical for a modern fighter? Would there be any advantage to it?

Like I said, no argument here. Just a question. 🙂

–Gavin.