uss

I dunno if the vert stabilizers are going to make any difference to frontal RCS, where i think the Rafale is the best. Also don't forget, it has just 1 tail/stabilizer vs the Shornets 2 + horizontal stabilizers (more reflecting surface area if i'm not mistaken). Overall, it seems as though the rafale has the most optimized airframe for low RCS. JMT.

regards,
USS.

Northalius

I am talking about side-profile stealth, when I bring up the vertical stabilizers.

The Rafale's (and Eurofighters' and Tejas', etc.) vertical stabilizer is at a 90 degree right angle.

If what you say is true, then the F-16 has superior stealth profile, because it has just one vertical stabilizer at 90 degrees, as compared to the F-22's, YF-23's and F-35's twin vertical stabilizers, which are slanted?

YF-23


F-22


F-35


I don't think it's a coincidence that all the stealth fighters mentioned above, have slanted vertical stabilizers. They're there for a reason: superior stealth!

Tronic

well, North, there are several other aircraft which have rectangular air-intakes; including F-15s, MiG-29s, Su-27s, Su-30s, I don't really get what recatangular airintakes have got to do with stealth, maybe you could help me out here. And i'm guessing the slanted vertical stabilizers would help deflect radar waves? Or is there another reason for the stabilizers to be slanted? As I think there are several trainers out there with the slanted stabilizers, and then there is the Iranian Shafaq which also has slanted stabilizers. It makes me wonder if there is more to the slanted vertical stabilizers then stealth. Your input would be appreciated in this field aswell.

__________________
Nabha Sparasham Deeptam
-Touch The Sky With Glory

Jimmy

Then there's the old Hornets, as well as the very not-stealth F-14.

Northalius

For the vertical stabilizers, it's called "lack of 90 degree right angles" ! The 90 degree right angles deflect radar waves directly back to the source, from the side profile. That's why slanted is more stealthier, whether intentionally made for stealth, or not. It is what it is.

The air intakes on the F-22...

...are extremely slanted, like a diamond! As are those on the F-18 Super Hornet.

The F-15's air intakes (among others you mentioned)...

...are not.

GGTharos

Further, it appear that the F-22's intakes are shaped to hide the engines, which are allegedly great RCS contributors.

uss

I'm not particularly arguing that point - however, you must realize that a single - tailed bird such as the rafale/typhoon/f16 have little choice and can't really have angled "twin stabilizers" can they? doesn't mean that you have to have twin stabilizers to be stealthy. Even in the side profile - the twin horizontal stabilizers might well go against the Shornet's RCS vis a vis the Rafale (since it doesn't have any).

Regards,
USS.

GGTharos

I think you're arguing a rather moot point here ...

The F-23, F-22, F-35 and F-117 all have angled vertical stabilizers.
The B-2 has none. As for the rafale being stealthier than the SH, -maybe-, but again I don't see the point of the argument; the SH is more likely to be stealthier simply due to the experience of the company that made it with stealth.

Practical reasons may prevent it from doing so. It's a toss-up.

Northalius

The F-35 is to replace the F-16 in the USAF; why didn't they just throw a single vertical stabilizer on it?

Because it'd raise its RCS from the side, all the more. Right angles like that are not good for stealth.

How would horizontal stabilizers ruin side profile stealth? They wouldn't.

From underneath, yes. But that goes for any aircraft with wings!

If you choose not to see what I've plainly pointed out, then that's up to you. I'll let everyone else decide.

avon1944

The reason the Hornet (& family) have twin tails is because of the need to reduce its overall height (to accommodate carrier operations) while maintaining rudder authority, throughout its flight envelope. As for the intakes, the F-22, YF-23, Super Hornet, etc. have S-shape inlet ducts to reduce the chance of a RF signal seeing the face of the engines.

As for the lowest RCS aircraft, the Rafale, Super Hornet & Typhoon are in a similar class RCS with around 1.0m² RCS. It was originally thought the Typhoon would have a RCS fifty percent higher than the Rafale. Testing during flight has shown the difference is negligible.

Adrian

starwarsgeek12

correct me if im wrong, but isn't the S/U-47 Berkut (srry don't no how to spell it ) designed to be at least partially stealthy?

THis is from wikipedia:
"Nonetheless, the aircraft includes reduced radar signature features (including radar absorbent materials)"

also, look @ the pics i attached....it looks like it was designed to be pretty stealthy...


Just a question

Starwarsgeek12

Attached Images

	SU-47.jpg (35.0 KB, 56 views)
	su47_header.jpg (8.5 KB, 57 views)

Jimmy

It doesnt look stealthy at all...it looks sleek, but it looks like a modified Flanker airframe to me. Granted, materials can make a huge impact on RCS, but the external shape is not stealthy.

omeko3

Anyone else thinking about the Shafaq, isn't that supposed to be very stealthy?

highsea

Agree. FSW planforms are humungous corner reflectors at the wing root.

__________________
My baby called me up. She said- Why don't you ever take me out? Pick me up in your brand new car....You shake the short change from the old fruit jar...

highsea

Shafaq is a subsonic LIF/Trainer. Not stealthy at all, just look at the cockpit from the front.