Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!bionet!ames!pacbell!att!cbnews!military From: chidsey@smoke.brl.mil (Irving Chidsey) Newsgroups: sci.military Subject: Re: Stealth - cheaper applications Message-ID: <14203@cbnews.ATT.COM> Date: 21 Feb 90 02:31:32 GMT References: <14169@cbnews.ATT.COM> Sender: military@cbnews.ATT.COM Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD. Lines: 35 Approved: military@att.att.com From: Irving Chidsey In article <14169@cbnews.ATT.COM> military@cbnews.ATT.COM (William B. Thacker) writes: < < The reason that I'm asking is because, quite simply, of all the < aircraft in the military inventory, those are the easiest planes to < reduce the visual and radar signature. < < Consider an airplane that has foam wings with carbon-fiber spars. < This gives us a nearly radar-transparent airframe. non-radar comments deleted < Radar signature is the tough one. To start with, the plane is < small, and that helps. Omit any radar onboard, radar dishes have a < high Radar Cross Section. < < Neil Kirby The radar antenna has a high CAPTURE cross-section. It is designed to be verry efficient at transmitting and receiving radar signals at design wavelengths. Unless there is a reason, what happens at other wavelengths is left up for grabs because it is easier and cheaper that way. What you have to avoid, is a retroreflector. If you can avoid that, there shouldn't be much problem. Irv -- I do not have signature authority. I am not authorized to sign anything. I am not authorized to commit the BRL, the DOA, the DOD, or the US Government to anything, not even by implication. Irving L. Chidsey