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”

Ww that’s great, but you still need to have wings?! 😀
How do you plan to fit those, there?
What you quoted is a principle, of which only a fraction is applicable in atmospheric conditions.
The vast majority is still planar alignment and flat surfaces (F117).

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.

Well, I though I may try with paraphrased (simpler) explanations, which you should understand.
Obviously, I was wrong…
Anyway, the guy explained the issue correctly, whether it’s been written on the wall of the ladies’ room, or in technical encyclopedia.
Unfortunately, yet again, you failed to understand and that’s fine, but please don’t argue in this tone any more, when you don’t understand the topic.

So again, you still get the faceted design, BUT the edges aren’t sharp as in F117 anymore, but are given a chord usually smaller than radar wavelength, hence reducing scattered return…the only true problem the F117 had (page 26, of the very book you linked).

@Wrightwing,

I’m sorry but “LOL”, is a the only answer to your post…

First of all it’s planform alignment(which has to do with leading and trailing edges of the wings and tail having identical sweep angles), and I’d love to hear you elaborate on the aspects where the Typhoon is superior in this area. There are no right/abrupt angles on the belly of the F-35, as it uses the continuous curvature design(shaping where there is constantly changing radii, to prevent RF energy from being reflected back to the source) combined with RAM materials/paints, sawtooth seams, etc…

WW, I know why I used planar alignment term.
Reexamine the F117 example and you’ll hopefully learn why.
There are less abrupt angles on EF than on F117, so are you claiming EF being more stealthy than F117?

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

Apparently not, so it would be good for you to read materials written by your very own Lockeed’s engineers, who devised F117 and why and how they came to “continuous curvature” idea.

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?

It’s curious how you neglect to post articles like this one, when grasping for evidence to support your notion of inferiority of the F-35.

Don’t be ridiculous…where does the text say, the F135 can maintain 43k lbs continuously?

In the middle of the Cold War, the F15, a mainstay of US air power, got declassified almost immediately, so I’m wondering against whom, PW needs to hide F135’s actual figures, today?

I guess, EADS, Dassault, SAAB, Mig, Sukhoi, etc., are just morons who are too stupid to classify their data against evil Chinese, aren’t they? 😀
Anyway, thrust ratings for M88 at 7.5t, EJ200 at 9t, etc…are given as max. CONTINUOUS output.
All those engines have wartime override.

Anyway, I merely pointed out this marketing gimmick and that’s all.
No need to get all worked up, immediately.

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?

AirSuperiorty UAVs? Hardly…

Just an average human’s middle ear (a vestibular apparatus) is way more sophisticated than any gyro today, plus it comes already installed in the pilot’s head.
A pilot knows at any moment the overall attitude on the aircraft without taking his eyes of the sky, target, etc…the pilot in the plane flies with his whole body.
Another issue is perception and SA and I’d say UAV guys are deprived of “6th” sense.

UAVs are probably good for computer game type of level bombing runs, where spatial perception and comprehension is irrelevant.

why would we need dogfights in future?

Because, we’re people.
Some will try to stay out of it, some will try to force it, depending on hardware available and the result will be a mix of those two, as it always is.

Many cheap and small spy drones (flying riding floating and sinking) could change it all.

And will get shot down in large quantities.
Never underestimate the pilot and his will and creativity to survive.
You just can’t compare that to the guys playing video games.

There’s nothing contradictory between either post. That’s where the semantics issue is coming into play.

There’s everything contradictory in that post.
Ww, the missile can’t “conserve” the energy as you apparently think. This isn’t semantics, but misconception and there’s no room for nuance.
This is why I told you to quantize your claim and fathom how wrong you are.

The combination was due to Obligatory’s adding of a percentage to the range you’d given. I was merely pointing out that a MAWS may be able under certain circumstances, detect a missile at 30km, but certainly not with a greater that 99% probability from any azimuth/elevation.

How have Obligatory added anything?? You assume way too much.
He didn’t quote me, or anything similar…aren’t you behaving a bit paranoid?
Besides, how do you know certain MAWS can’t detect missile type target at 30km with 99% certainty?
I haven’t found a single piece of evidence that would deny or corroborate that myself, but you’re welcome to prove otherwise.

I know so. You spend an inordinate amount of time, picking away at my posts, worrying about whether I should’ve said happy or glad, while missing the point altogether.

No, you THINK you know so, but the reality is something else.
What you think is splitting hair, is indeed a difference of a few generations of design and tech breakthroughs, which many paid with their lives…

At BVR ranges, the missile is only going to be making minor course corrections, as it will only take small adjustments to keep pointed at a wildly moving target. Once it gets closer, then it will have to turn harder to keep oriented correctly. I’m not sure what’s necessary to verify, as that’s a pretty common sense notion.

Quantize!
Don’t run into generics, the moment your “knowledge” is put on a test.

I don’t doubt modern MAWS is effective. Where we disagree is just how much warning time the pilot is going to have. I have my doubts that an incoming missile, that wasn’t detected by an MLD, will be discovered 30km away(>99% of the time).

First, who said anything about 99%, at 30km??

Second, of course you have doubts since you don’t know how those systems operate. Nothing new here, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t so.

Here are the different types of navigation types-

Velocity Pursuit
Proportional Navigation
Command-to-Line-of-Sight
Beam Riding

What do you disagree with, in terms of the missile leading the target, being the point of Pro-Nav? You seem to continually ascribe meanings to my posts that are non-existent.

Yes well, VP and CLOS are used against (almost) stationary targets (some don’t even measure distance to target, due the speed difference) in a terrain sensitive projectiles (CLOS) and Beam Riding has been kicked out 30-50 years ago.

Anyway, the point being is that the missile HAS to match EVERY move by the target to stay on intercept vector, unlike to what you’ve claimed.
Missile’s corrections are smaller while the missile is faster and further from the target, but it’s still very possible to “kill” the missile 30km away, by making enough 180° turns while flying fast.
Exact figures would depend on numerous factors, but there’s no guidance in this world that can prevent this.
Ironically, it would be better to have Beam Riding guidance in such situation than the proportional one.
Air breathers (like Meteor) are by far, the most difficult opponents in such situations.