Sir, I provided pictures. It was from this sites' Have Slick page. The shapes mimicked other pictures, also from this sites' Have Slick page which showed the missiles mounted to an F-117 wind tunnel model.
Look at the rear F-22. Can you see the way the back side of the tank is cut off at an angle? Why choose that lighting angle if not to 'highlight' this since the other tank/side is fully shadowed? Does not the extremely perspective reduced lower side of the tank on the lead jet not suggest that this is a sloping/faceted face? Or do you believe the USAF have chosen a surfboard for their next EFT? Why, if a constant radius curve is also a great way to build up an edge diffraction return, does that tank have a saber-radius tip, like a pointed curve? Could it be that they wanted to maintain maximum diameter, as far forward as possible, to house an internal missile? Or is it perhaps some kind of an area-rule effect to retain supersonic capability like the French Rafale/Mirage 2000l tanks use?
Using the imagery which I provided from this site, can you not see the similarity in shaping as a 'low drag tank pylon' which the Aviationist and Drive commented upon as being a reduced signature solution because the standard, 600 gallon, wing tanks are not stealthy? Does it not make sense that this is because their cylindrical shape is subject to creeping or traveling wave wraparound and backscatter which causes the radar to see the jet?
Or are you trying to say that Have Slick had nothing to do with the shapes on display and their similarity of outline, despite a vast gulf in period 1980s and period 2020's technical VLO engineering is purely coincidental?
Because if that's what you're saying, then you're saying that shape doesn't matter.
That's an interesting opinion.
I would suggest this provides all manner of potential problems inherent to safe release and high ejector impulse flash back (pyro) or bounce back/ripple (pneumatic) effects on the stealth treated skin as airflow reasserts itself between the munition and airframe.
But if you were to do such a thing, how does this resolve drag issues on a tank which does have a separate pylon and indeed has to, to clear the LEF?
If it's a signature issue and you nest the pylon into the tank, as with say the F-14, what happens when the tank has to come off to meet acceleration profile requirements and now all the hardware (piping, sway braces, rams) is just hanging out there in the breeze?
On the F-117 wind tunnel model, from which your images were taken, the munitions are a considerable distance apart. Therefore, there is neither supersonic flow, nor radar lobe resonant cavity interactions, as USAF 'Raptor Update' most certainly suggests.
Are these fixed stores? Are you powering through on the strength of the F119 burner? Doesn't this form significant signature + persistence compromise to the /very idea/ of both 'super cruise' and what an EFT should be doing?
Or is that tank not a tank but a strong back for an ALHTK as BPI/API ballistic missile defense capability for forces fighting 'somewhere east of Cherkasy'?
Frankly, two shots worth of BMD is somewhat laughable, unless you are trying to get fall back of nuclear munitions, back onto the shooter.
Sigh. Lies and Truths.
When the Apollo 11 went to the Moon, them NASA boys were counting stitches in space suits. When they went back, wanna say it was...15?, weight was so inconsequential that they managed not only to bring a 460lb curb weight rover down with them but they put it's garage into the space where the nitrogen bottles had been, to supply the Aerozine 50 and N204 fuel/oxidizer, to the DPS rocket motor. Anything you can walk away from?
When stealth was new, we were told that material transition changes of a few microvolt impedance load difference between materials and levels/tolerance spacing of a millimeter or two on things like weapons bay doors could completely give the game away.
Now I am told, on a forum, by an F-35 pilot, that an AIM-9X on an external rail is 'really not much of a contributor to RCS'. This despite a 5" hole into a Cassegrain telescope like a cat's eye. And stabilization canards and tail controls with 90` angles on a round body the dimensions of which are at ideal dipole length for an X-Band resonant return. All while mounted on a LAU-151 with more gap than seal.
I do wish you fine folks would get together and get your stories straight. Stealth does not work the way you tell us. That's a lie I can accept, truthfully. Stealth doesn't work at all, now that's Pierre Sprey level lala land and it just disrupts my whole gestalt. Y'know?
