Originally posted by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
Originally posted by Brother Stormhammer
It's an interesting vehicle, but I don't see anything particularly awe-inspiring about it.
Flying boats aren't anything new...just ask the Glen L. Martin company.
You want flying boats? Here you go.
Also available in jet flavor!
Any claims that the Iranian vehicles are 'radar evading' or 'stealthy' should be taken with a huge grain of salt. Large flat surfaces and
right-angle curves make for really good radar reflections (there's a reason the B-2 Spirit has the shape it does).
The B2 is shaped the way it is because that's the same general design of the Nazi "Amerika" bomber, based off of the smaller Horten 2-29 stealth
fighter prototype. It's no secret that the Americans stole Nazi scientists and designs.
I get *really* tired of all this "German technology was so far ahead of the Allies" crap. The Germans weren't the only people designing "flying
wing" designs, and none of them (be they Nazi or Northrop) , were being designed for 'stealth' purposes. Flying wings were originally investigated
for reasons that had to do with aerodynamic efficiency. Frankly, in the 1940s, radar propagation and reflection wasn't well enough understood for
anybody on either side of the war to be designing for 'stealth'. The entire "German super-tech" argument isn't on-topic for this thread. If you
want to start another topic for it, we can talk about it without derailing this one.
And why should I take Iranian stealth with a grain of salt? Because it is Iranian made? What a joke. I say this as a general statement: Your
understanding of "slopes" doesn't mean jack. I doubt you're a weapons scientist, or an aeronautical engineer, or a government intelligence
analyst. Your opinion has nothing on the facts presented by the engineers who made this craft. If they say it is stealth, then it is stealth
REGARDLESS of what people's personal opinions are against Iran. Seriously.
Wow. You assume a lot, don't you. You might also consider switching to decaff. Seriously.
To turn your argument around, are *you* a weapons scientist, an aeronautical engineer, or government intelligence analyst? By your own logic, if you
aren't, I should disregard your opinion, shouldn't I?
To answer your question (in a considerably more polite tone than said question was posed), no, I'm not a "weapons scientist" (though that sounds
like an interesting major, they didn't offer a Masters Program in weapons at my university), nor am I an aeronautical engineer, nor am I a government
intelligence analyst (though oddly enough, I've been accused of being a government disinformation agent more than once).
My suggestion that Iranian claims that their flying boats were 'stealthy' be taken with a grain of salt has nothing to do with the fact that the
vehicle was made in Iran. There's enough public-domain literature about radar propagation and reflection out there for even a civilian (with a high
enough 'geek coefficient') to make some fairly educated guesses about what a 'stealthy' airframe would look like. For those who don't want to
wade through the calculus, there's another, slightly less scholarly method, called "look at what works". Look at currently-existing aircraft that
are known to be 'stealthy' to radar, You'll find that there are certain design elements they have in common, and others that they avoid like the
plague. Now look at anything that's supposed to be stealthy, and see if it has any of those common elements, and whether it incorporates elements
that known stealth platforms avoid. If it doesn't have many of the common elements, and does have a lot of the avoided elements, then yes, I'm going
to suggest that the stealth claims be taken *very* skeptically, regardless of whether the design in question is Iranian, Canadian, American, Russian,
Kzinti, or Klingon.