I’m guessing they won’t be using noise jamming techniques first of all, and it’s the F-22’s element of surprise that’s at issue here, not the F-15’s.

LOL, Wrightwing…don’t know where to start, with you?!

That’s painfully obvious.

Here are two links that HOPEFULLY MIGHT give you an idea, how does the stealth work:

It’s funny you link to the same document, but did you read it with understanding, in the first place?
http://books.google.hr/books?id=Q_wyJ_pKcqoC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=Continuous+curvature+stealth&source=bl&ots=gQLMyYUPQ3&sig=hhO2kDwAx1ICRQypRkKBFR-1Z68&hl=hr&ei=8UnPTNOzDcL3sgbTkpzkAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Continuous%20curvature%20stealth&f=false
(Page 25+, although it would do you good to read the whole book)

You may want to reread page 25, especially the paragraph saying-“Cashen’s electromagneticists saw that the same results-ensuring that every part of the surface was angled away from the radar in two dimensions- could also be achieved if the surface was curved. Indeed, if the entire skin of the aircraft comprised one surface, with curving contours of constantly changing radius and direction, there would be no edges or creases at all, avoiding any “hot spots” in the RCS”

and:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread207055/pg1
(Examine all, but pay special attention and read with understanding, this Xar Ke Zeth guy’s explanation of continuous curvature and Planeman’s graphics)

If you don’t get it even after this, I don’t think anyone can help you any more.

You’re going to attack my credibility, and then use abovetopsecret.com as a source? Seriously? I will say that your mastery of ad hominem, and strawman arguments is without equal.

(dunno how would the F35 fly over Himalayas, though?! :D)

Why would this be a problem? The F-35 can easily fly above the Himalayas.

To be fair though, there’s a huge difference between costing 20% more than planned, than 80+% more than planned.

Here are just a few links for educational purposes on the merits of continuous curvature designs.

http://books.google.com/books?id=Q_wyJ_pKcqoC&pg=PA26&lpg=PA26&dq=continuous+curvature+shaping&source=bl&ots=gQLMyXZNL0&sig=GL62lmARj_1Y8AeFTNM__4a_s1E&hl=en&ei=bDXPTKeHEMSblgfbw7CbBg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6&ved=0CC4Q6AEwBQ#v=onepage&q=continuous%20curvature%20shaping&f=false

http://www.harpoonhq.com/waypoint/articles/Article_021.pdf

starting on Page 5

http://www.futurefirepower.com/f22-raptor-f-22-raptor-stealth-fighter-jet

WW, I know why I used planar alignment term.
Reexamine the F117 example and you’ll hopefully learn why.

Are you referring to the faceted design? That was a great solution before it became possible to design stealthy aircraft with better aerodynamic shapes.

There are less abrupt angles on EF than on F117, so are you claiming EF being more stealthy than F117?

Nice try to put words in my mouth again. The angles on the F-117 were far more purposeful with regards to signature reduction, than those of the EF.

What do right angles have to do with anything?
Do you have any idea what are you talking about?

Check out some of the vents/scoops on the belly of the EF, not to mention under the wings.

For the millionth time, a curved shape has more-less uniform RCS across wide range of angles (WW, that’s bad, NOT good), while planar aligned shape reflects under very narrow range of off-bore angles (depending of freq.), thus redistributing reflections.
This is why all sorts of leading edges f.e., are reflectors.
RAM can absorb very small percentage of overall inbound radio energy (by virtue of a limited mass/capacity of the object) and a plane being insulated, certainly doesn’t help.

What’s so “smart” about this, that you just can’t understand?

This is where you’re wrong again. Continuous curvature design allows you to have a very low RCS AND good aerodynamics simultaneously, which is why it is a GOOD idea. Had they had access to the supercomputing power the B-2, F-22, and F-35 have had the benefits of, when designing the F-117, it would’ve had a far different shape.

Well waves scatter, but don’t necessary increase RCS towards the monostatic radar setup.
You see, principals of stealth shaping work the same way, although LO shaping tries to control reflections.
Anyway, EF is being RAM treated indeed and has better belly planar alignment than F35, which is plain obvious from comparative photos.
F35’s belly is a joke (compare it to F117’s, or B2’s).
dj, detail treatment is fine, but buddy, F35 got some pretty nasty bumps down there and you can’t treat that with RAM.
It’s crappy shaping…you can’t possibly compare that to LWR antenna RCS increase.

The only actual problem for EF here, are ‘Winders’ pylons.
Ditch those and you’ll get the same AA loadout and comparable RCS and don’t worry about EF’s seams too much…boys from EF GmbH heard of RAM sealing as well.

BTW, EADS released EF’s radio scatter picture. Can’t wait to see F35’s. 😉

And when I’m already here…any F35 apologist prepared to comment this?

You’re honestly going to sit there and say that this belly has better LO shaping? There isn’t a single sawtooth pattern to be seen on any panel, and far more bumps, and abrupt angles. RAM can help, but it can’t compensate that much.
http://i50.tinypic.com/2czrnsm.jpg

As far as commenting on your link about the F-135 success. That’s excellent news.

P&W details success with F135 engine STOVL tests

The high temperature margin test at the Arnold Engineering Development Center showed the STOVL F135 can survive despite exceeding non-augmented thrust by 28%, says Bennett Croswell, P&W vice-president.

Despite exceeding thrust limits, a post-test inspection revealed no signs of damage or structural fatigue, Croswell says. The company shipped the engine straight to its West Palm Beach site in Florida to run a final series of tests with no further repairs or parts changes.

“The purpose of the test is to validate the engine is robust enough to handle even worst-case conditions that it will have over its service life,” Croswell says.

Although the high-temperature test showed the F135 can withstand power spikes, the engine is designed to operate regularly in the 40,000lb-thrust (178kN) range.

Are you sure this is the link you meant to post, in order to try and make the F-35 look bad?:cool:

these designs are also predicted to have much greater ranges than any manned aircraft (don’t really know why)

Because pilots need to eat, sleep, and use the restroom.