If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
What's the point of having a low-shock-noise BOMBER? So you don't
disturb the peaceful sleep of the same guys you just bombed? The technology is being investigated for overland supersonic transports, not stike a/c. Yeah yeah, Low Observable can also mean acoustic, sure... in principle. In reality, however: 1) No amount of shock dissipation will make the plane silent/undetectable. 2) No missile/search system tracks via soundwaves. QSF and a bomber project have nothing in common. Paul F Austin wrote... I wrote I just saw another article on the "Popular Science" website about a research program Northrop Grumman has been running with the goal of quieter supersonic aircraft. Last year, they did some test runs with an aerodynamically-modified F-5E Tiger II that were promising. Perhaps they'll take what they learned and apply them to the YF-23 revival plan. That's unlikely. The QSF techniques involve moving the shocks around to gain cancellation. In the QSF F-5, that meant a loooong nose. It's unlikely that you can have a QSF shape that's also stealthy. I'm looking over the pictures of the F-5 demonstrator and don't really see any real problems per se. The nose on the demonstrator isn't much longer than the original one...the main difference is the fuselage is much deeper. A deeper fuse on the YF-23 design would mean a significantly larger payload bay for air-to-ground weapons. I think this deepened fuselage can be tailored to be low-observable and still reap the benefits of the improved aero-acoustics. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|