Gambit.
Thank you for your extremely informative posts. MY question is an elementary one.and to my mind if there is a mechanical way of carrying the missiles closer to the wings the pressure on the wings and possibly the RCS could be reduced. The mechanism would then unfold(to the normal position) prior to firing the missile. Why do planes not adapt this and what would be the technical difficulties in achieving this.
Response would be appreciated
Araz
We are experimenting with enclosing ordnance into weapons pods, if that is what you are asking. The F-15SE and the F-18 are test beds for that. Does not matter if the ordnance is missile or bomb, as long as there is a way to safely and quickly discharge the load, the issue is more finance than engineering.
SNAFU!: F-18 Pod Carry Weapons Graphic.
There is a catch, though. The enclosure must be robust enough to carry the weapons load, which may cut into how much weapons load originally the aircraft or wing can carry. It is not 'if there is a mechanical way' but 'if there is money to develop the idea'.
A lot of RCS measurement needs to be done on a clean aircraft as baseline. Then a fully loaded version must be measured. All radar viewing angles must be done. Then from the clean model, we begins to incrementally load it with external stores, which includes fuel and weapons, measuring as we go along.
Here is where things get complicated, as if it has not been complicated enough already.
Remember, external stores includes fuel and weapons, and for the latter, we have air-ground and air-air, which affects how much external fuel do we want to carry. If we load one external fuel tank, how much is the aircraft's RCS is raised in percentage to the fully loaded version ? If the elevated RCS is within 50 %, for a rough example, to the fully loaded version, then you must ask yourself if a weapons pod design is worth it at this point. If only one external fuel tank and you are within 50% of the fully loaded version, then how much closer to the fully loaded version if you install two wing weapons pod ?
Remember, even though the weapons pod will reduce the RCS of a load of missiles/bombs, you will lose one or two missiles or bombs for that RCS reduction. Instead of 6 missiles, may be you can carry only 4. Instead of a pair of 350kg bombs, may be you are reduced to a pair of 250kg bombs. Instead of 12 small diameter bombs, may be you down to 8. Instead of 2 runway denial bombs per wing, you are now down to 1 per wing. And for a runway denial mission against enemy base, two bombs per fighter are not going to cut it.
Here is a cluster of Durandals on one wing of one F-111...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/F-111_with_Durandal.jpg
Remember, practically all fighters are multi-role today. What if with one external fuel tank and a pair of weapons pod, which may contains missiles or bombs, you are now 75% of the RCS of the fully loaded version, which can carries two external fuel tanks, two clusters of small diameter bombs, and four missiles ? Can you accomplish your missions with this reduced configuration ? If you answer no, then financially speaking, it is not worth the development time and cost. Your test fighter is now limited to half of the original load but is 75% of the RCS of the fully loaded version. Not worth it, in my opinion.
So if is is as simple as enclosing the weapons into a pod, everyone would have done it a long time ago. Instead, because the aircraft was not designed with RCS control tactics in the first place, you have to perform these measurements and all sorts of tactical calculus to see if the reduced RCS is worth the effort and money.
You can bet your next year's salary that everything I said above, competent engineers and military officers have already thought it out. All they need are the facilities and the aircrafts to verify their math. Unfortunately, not every country have the technical resources to back up their mental ones.