Re: NIFT Stealth II Trial AAR

--- Alan and Carmel Brain <aebrain@austarmetro.com.au>
wrote:
> From: "Charles Taylor"
> <charles.taylor@cableol.co.uk>
> > 
> > I agree, and a similar methodology could be
> applied to aerodynamic hulls.
> > Hmm..  what about combined Stealth/Aerodynamics?
> 
> I've been thinking on exactly those lines.
> Should Stealth/Aerodynamics be the same, ie one
> implies the other?
> Or should you get a discount, so instead of paying
> 20% for stealth
> and another 20% for aerodynamics, you pay 30% for
> both? Or even 25%?
> 

I was thinking in terms of the sensor transparent 
aerodynamic coating/structure overlaying the sensor
defusive/absorbing stealth material/hull.
In this case, discounts are not appropriate.

In your discound based concept the aerodynamic
structure is also defusive/absorbing stealth material.
Aerodynamic form is not likely to be defusive as it
is based on smooth lines and not on a series of 
small broken plains set to various angles to reflect
the minimum signal back to the detection equipment.
One can always justify anything with PSB.

Bye for now,
John L.