f-22lm wrote:Hey guys I everybody is saying that the f-35s bumps and humps decrease stealth is that true? Thank you for answering I just really need to know.
Not intending to slight your question but it may be overly broad.
When you ask if bumps decreases stealth one might reply "Decreased from what???"
The entire body design is a bump isn't it?
Every 'bump' has some kind of system orifice associated with it. Something that lives inside the airframe that needs access to the outside world to accomplish it's purpose. If you were to remove all those systems so that you wouldn't have the unsightly 'bumps' then you may increase your stealth signature at the terrible cost of having an airplane that was no longer a combat aircraft.
The entire aircraft and all it's systems is carefully reviewed.
capability vs. producibility vs. cost vs. stealth-signature
trade-off debates were a constant event during the design phase.
What you see now including 'bumps' are the end result of those debates.
At a basic level, you only get a radar return off of a surface when it is "normal" to you -- that is, face on. As such, bumps and wiggles in a surface that is inclined well away from any likely observer don't compromise stealth in important directions. However, edges are effectively "normal" to all directions perpendicular to the line that forms that edge, so all you have to do to get a return is have that edge be perpendicular to your line of sight. As such, the general idea in stealth is to limit the number of edges an aircraft has, and to align all the existing edges to a small number of directions. Any parts that stick up with a lot of edges need to be covered by a curved surface.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.