(I know, I know: Don't. But I'm bored and we're doing this.)
The Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II is essentially a bomber. It was designed with the idea of attacking ground targets in a relatively* permissive air defense environment. It's notable for the size and power of its gun, which could defeat the Soviet tank armor of the time, and the robustness of its airframe. The plane's ability to get hit and keep flying is legendary, almost mythical.
So what would that plane look like, if we set out to make one today? Here's what I think.
It is widely agreed that not getting shot at is far superior to surviving a hit. There are two main ways to go about not getting shot at: Stay out of range, and be hard to see (whether optically, with radar, or with infrared).
Staying out of range is largely achieved with precision long-range weapons. Such weapons are outside the scope of this post, but suffice to say they do exist. Beyond that, it becomes necessary to delete the gun. Getting rid of the gun is the first major design change.
Staying out of range has synergies with being hard to see. The harder the plane is to see, the closer it can get to its target without being close enough to show up clearly on enemy air defense sensors.
There are several aspects of a plane that can be designed to make it harder to see: Serrated edges on hatches and panels, radar-absorbent coatings, s-curved intake ducts, masked and cooled exhaust, and the overall shape of the plane.
Serrated panel edges and radar-absorbent coatings are a given, of course.
S-curved intake ducts serve to hide the jet engine fans from radar. The fan face is a major source of radar returns. S-ducts are made by offsetting the engine itself from the intake duct. This can be done horizontally, such as by placing the intakes outboard and the engines inboard, as on the F-22. It can also be done vertically, such as by placing the intakes ventrally and the engines dorsally, as on the Eurofighter Typhoon. (It can even be done diagonally, as on the Rafale.)
Since the A-10's engines are already above the centerline, let's drop the intake ducts to below the centerline, for a vertical s-curve that hides the engine fans from radar view.
Speaking of the A-10's engines, they already have a simple form of exhaust masking, inside the box of the twin tail assemblies. This design feature has been further refined on planes like the the F-22 and - more exotically - the B-2. So let's give the A-10 an integrated exhaust-tail assembly that maximizes the cooling and hiding effect on the hot gases coming from the engines.
Finally, let's look at the overall shape of the plane. We've already "stealthified" the tail assembly. The nose also needs to be flattened and widened to feed into the overall lozenge-shape of optimal radar diffraction. Last but not least, the right-angled "iron cross" wings need to be replaced with the same now-familiar lozenge.
Reader, I give you the Black Widow II. Thank you for coming to my TEDx talk.
The Fairchild A-10 Thunderbolt II is essentially a bomber. It was designed with the idea of attacking ground targets in a relatively* permissive air defense environment. It's notable for the size and power of its gun, which could defeat the Soviet tank armor of the time, and the robustness of its airframe. The plane's ability to get hit and keep flying is legendary, almost mythical.
So what would that plane look like, if we set out to make one today? Here's what I think.
It is widely agreed that not getting shot at is far superior to surviving a hit. There are two main ways to go about not getting shot at: Stay out of range, and be hard to see (whether optically, with radar, or with infrared).
Staying out of range is largely achieved with precision long-range weapons. Such weapons are outside the scope of this post, but suffice to say they do exist. Beyond that, it becomes necessary to delete the gun. Getting rid of the gun is the first major design change.
Staying out of range has synergies with being hard to see. The harder the plane is to see, the closer it can get to its target without being close enough to show up clearly on enemy air defense sensors.
There are several aspects of a plane that can be designed to make it harder to see: Serrated edges on hatches and panels, radar-absorbent coatings, s-curved intake ducts, masked and cooled exhaust, and the overall shape of the plane.
Serrated panel edges and radar-absorbent coatings are a given, of course.
S-curved intake ducts serve to hide the jet engine fans from radar. The fan face is a major source of radar returns. S-ducts are made by offsetting the engine itself from the intake duct. This can be done horizontally, such as by placing the intakes outboard and the engines inboard, as on the F-22. It can also be done vertically, such as by placing the intakes ventrally and the engines dorsally, as on the Eurofighter Typhoon. (It can even be done diagonally, as on the Rafale.)
Since the A-10's engines are already above the centerline, let's drop the intake ducts to below the centerline, for a vertical s-curve that hides the engine fans from radar view.
Speaking of the A-10's engines, they already have a simple form of exhaust masking, inside the box of the twin tail assemblies. This design feature has been further refined on planes like the the F-22 and - more exotically - the B-2. So let's give the A-10 an integrated exhaust-tail assembly that maximizes the cooling and hiding effect on the hot gases coming from the engines.
Finally, let's look at the overall shape of the plane. We've already "stealthified" the tail assembly. The nose also needs to be flattened and widened to feed into the overall lozenge-shape of optimal radar diffraction. Last but not least, the right-angled "iron cross" wings need to be replaced with the same now-familiar lozenge.
Reader, I give you the Black Widow II. Thank you for coming to my TEDx talk.
via International Skeptics Forum https://ift.tt/3pgUuMx
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire