Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 467–481

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Science and Technology,

an International Journal
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jestch

Full Length Article

Monostatic radar cross section of flying wing delta planforms

Sevoor Meenakshisundaram Vaitheeswaran ⇑, Talapaneni Shantakumar Gowthami, Sunil Prasad,
Bharadwaja Yathirajam
Aerospace Electronics and Systems Division, CSIR-National Aerospace Laboratories, HAL Airport Road, Kodihalli, Bengaluru 560017, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The design of the flying wing and its variants shapes continues to have a profound influence in the design
Received 15 November 2016 of the current and future use of military aircraft. There is very little in the open literature available to the
Revised 24 January 2017 understanding and by way of comparison of the radar cross section of the different wing planforms, for
Accepted 3 February 2017
obvious reasons of security and sensitivity. This paper aims to provide an insight about the radar cross
Available online 14 February 2017
section of the various flying wing planforms that would aid the need and amount of radar cross section
suppression to escape detection from surveillance radars. Towards this, the shooting and bouncing ray
Keywords:
method is used for analysis. In this, the geometric optics theory is first used for launching and tracing
Flying wing
Delta planforms
the electromagnetic rays to calculate the electromagnetic field values as the waves bounce around the
Electromagnetic scattering target. The physical optics theory is next used to calculate the final scattered electric field using the
Radar cross section far field integration along the observation direction. For the purpose of comparison, all the planform
Shooting and bouncing rays shapes are assumed to be having the same area, and only the aspect ratio and taper ratio are varied to
feature representative airplanes.
Ó 2017 Karabuk University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V. This is an open access article under the CC
BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction
The ‘‘flying wing” [1] delta planform studied for decades now
for military aircraft applications, continues to be a subject of inter-
est for most aircraft scientists and engineers for its advantages of
significant reduction in structural weight, drag and cost. The
weight reduction and drag over traditional aircrafts is achieved
[1–4] by eliminating the aft fuselage and empennage aerodynamic
surfaces. The cost reduction comes by virtue of the improved lift to
drag and consequent reduced fuel burn and empty weight reduc-
tion by removal of the conventional fuselage and tail structures.
The development of the flying wing and its variants has been
dramatic. For the tailless configuration, the delta wing is a well-
studied and suited configuration that has been realized in different
forms. When compared to its rival, the swept wing form; the delta
wing has a large internal storage volume, has good characteristics
particularly at high angles of attack; is less susceptible to aeroelas-
tic problems the flap-type longitudinal controls can be conve-
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: smvaithu@nal.res.in (S.M. Vaitheeswaran), gautiflying@gmail.
com (T.S. Gowthami), sunil@nal.res.in (S. Prasad), bharadwaja.yathirajam@gmail.
com (B. Yathirajam).
Peer review under responsibility of Karabuk University.
niently located on the wing trailing edge, far behind the aircraft’s
center of gravity [5].
For the military applications, the form of the aircraft lends itself
to easy optimization of the radar cross section for stealth [5]. The
design of stealth lies in its ability to reduce the Radar Cross
Section so that the waves transmitted towards the aircraft are lar-
gely deflected or absorbed. The choice of airfoil for stealth aircraft
is generally thin, angular, symmetrical and un-cambered [7]. Much
effort has been put in the design to satisfy cost effectiveness and
efficiency using flying wings, so that they can penetrate deep
enemy territories without being detected and increase survivabil-
ity. Conducting unclassified research is often difficult in the field
of stealth, given the sensitivity and secrecy of the strategic issues
concerned. Reference [6] uses a tailless, delta-wing fighter, is
developed for the purpose of investigating novel control effector
concepts and arrangements. However there is no credible data
base by way of comparison about the electromagnetic characteris-
tics of the different flying wing planforms which is so essential in
deciding the need and amount of radar cross section suppression
to escape detection from surveillance radars.
In this paper, the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of various planform
shapes of the flying wing are studied, when the planform has the
same reference area, the same airfoil at a constant Angle of Attack
and Wing dihedral angle at zero degrees. To ensure this, the Aspect
Ratio (AR) and Taper Ratio (TR) are varied so that all the examples

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jestch.2017.02.001
2215-0986/Ó 2017 Karabuk University. Publishing services by Elsevier B.V.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
468 S.M. Vaitheeswaran et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 467–481
Nomenclature
AR/TR Aspect Ratio/Taper Ratio
CAD Computer Aided Design
DF Divergence Factor
EM Electromagnetic
PO/GO Physical Optics/Geometric Optics
have an equal area but are representative of the actual airplanes.
The RCS computation is based on the Physical – Optics Shooting
Bouncing Ray method, which is capable of tackling simulations
with an electric size of many thousands of wavelengths. The
PO-SBR method combines the PO and GO methods wherein numer-
ous rays are launched from sources, which is then propagated
through the computational domain. These rays bounce between
the target surfaces using the GO method. The electromagnetic
fields at each hit points is converted into equivalent surface cur-
rents using the PO theory. The currents re-radiate electromagnetic
fields to all observation points which are summed up to represent
the final electromagnetic field computed at the corresponding
location of the computational domain.
2. Flying wing delta planforms
A large number of flying wing planforms exists (Fig. 1) for
designing supersonic aircrafts in the world using the delta wing
and its variants. These include: Standard delta, Compound delta,
Cropped delta, Compound Cropped Delta, Slanted wing and
Diamond/Lambda configurations. Popular aircraft with Delta wing
configuration are the Mig-21 [8], Typhoon [9]. There are different
variants of the tailless delta wing. The tail-less delta doesn’t pro-
vide enough lift and sufficient stability at lower Mach or subsonic
speed which is very important in dogfight [7]. This is compensated
for by providing a compound delta configuration. An example in
this class is the Indian Tejas [10] aircraft, which is a tail-less delta
Fig. 1. Flying Wing Planform: (a) Standard Delta, (b) Cropped Delta, (c) Compound
Delta, (d) Cropped Compound Delta, (e)Diamond, (f) Lambda.
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
OpenVSP Open Vehicle Sketch Pad
PEC Perfect Electric Conductor
RCS Radar Cross Section
SBR Shooting and Bouncing Ray Techniques
but with compound delta configuration. The inner part of the wing
has a high sweepback while the outer part has less swept to create
a high lift vortex and reduce drag. Another variant is the cropped –
delta an example of which is the F-16,with its wing tips cutoff to
avoid tail drag at high angles of attack. The lambda configurations
have lesser reflecting surfaces compared to the triangular data and
have lesser RCS characteristics. The slanted wing configuration in
the form of a diamond has a non-zero trailing edge sweep angle
required to meet low observability requirements.
3. Method of analysis
For electrically large problems, it is common to use asymptotic
methods using the optical properties of the high frequency electro-
magnetic waves for approximating the electromagnetic propaga-
tion. The Physical Optics-Shooting and Bouncing ray [11,12]
method is a popular approach which combines the method of
Geometric Optics (GO) and Physical Optics (PO). In the GO solution
the magnitude, direction and phase of the ray are added on the ray
traces of reflection, refraction and divergence of the optical rays to
mimic ray properties. In PO, using Huygens’s principle, the incident
electromagnetic waves are converted into equivalent surface
currents on the scattering surface of the structures which are
integrated and re-radiated to the observation points in the compu-
tational domain.
3.1. SBR formulation
The Shooting and Bouncing Ray Technique is an established
method for RCS computational studies. Combined with Computer
Aided Design and graphical modeling tools the method has been
used widely to measure RCS of complex structure of aircrafts in
the high frequency region. In the most basic form of shooting
and bouncing ray technique, rays that simulate the incident plane
wave are shot into the target, traced on the target using the GO
solution and finally gathered in an exit aperture. The GO field is
obtained by determining two coefficients: the reflection coeffi-
cients and the divergence factor. Using the reflected ray now as
the incident ray, the procedure is repeated until the ray escapes
the target. The PO integration is carried out for a metallic surface
at the wave front of the ray tube just before the ray escapes the
target. These are described mathematically below [12].
3.1.1. Ray launching
A dense set of rays describing the incident sources is launched
from the computational domain towards target structures in the
form
! !

! 
!
E ðrÞ ¼ E : exp jk i : r
inc
ð1Þ
!
where E ¼ Eh :^hi þ E/ :/
^i ð2Þ
refers to the horizontal and vertical components of the incoming
!
wave . k i is the incident wave number vector given by
 S.M. Vaitheeswaran et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 467–481 469

!
^ þ k cos hi :^z 3.1.3. Calculating the scattered field via PO
k i ¼ k sin hi cos /i :^x þ k sin hi cos /i :y ð3Þ
According to the PO theory, the incoming electric field for the
!
where k ¼ 2pf =c is the wave number corresponding to the fre-
n ; produces an equivalent surface current density of
mth ray, E m
quency variable f . !

The incident electric field that hits a point has the following J ðSA Þ, which can be approximated as:
m

form: ! !
J ðSA Þ ffi 2:E m
m ^
n ðxn ; yn ; zn Þ  sN ð7Þ
! !

! 
!
E Inc: ð@r ¼ r 1 Þ ¼ E : exp jk i : r 1 ð4Þ where ^sN is the surface normal at the last hit point and SA is the ray
tube area. As the last step, the PO integration is carried out to find
the far field scattered field contribution of the mth ray due to this
3.1.2. Ray tracing surface current:
Z Z
!  !
The bouncing rays as they hit the target are traced with the ! kg ! !
E ðkÞ ¼ j
m
N :d S
J m ðSA Þ: exp jk s : r m ð8Þ
rules of GO around the target. For perfect electric conductor 4pr
(PEC) surfaces, the rays are reflected and refracted according to
!
Snell’s law. After the first hit points, the subsequent reflected and where k s is the wave number vector along the scattering direction
refracted rays continue to propagate independently within the and is given by:
computational domain until the following conditions
!
s ^ þ k cos hs :^z
k ¼ k sin hs cos /s :^x þ k sin hs cos /s :y ð9Þ
1. The ray propagates and exits the computation environment;
2. The ray has bounced enough to lose its electromagnetic and g ¼ ðl=eÞ1=2 is the intrinsic impedance of the propagating med-
intensity; ium and N is the vector from the origin to the last bounce point for
3. The ray is bouncing back and forth between a set of repeating the mth ray, provided that the origin is selected as the phase center
hit points. of the scene. The above result is only valid for a single ray and the
electric field contribution from all of the rays should be summed up
As the mth ray hits P m n ðxn ; yn ; zn Þ points on the surface of the tar-
!
to calculate the total scattered electric field E s as:
get, ðn ¼ 1; 2; ; ::; NÞ the electric-field value around the nth hit point
Pm
n ðxn ; yn ; zn Þ can be found via [12]:
! X
M !
E ðkÞ ¼
s
E m ðkÞ ð10Þ
! !   m¼1
n1 ðxn ; yn ; zn Þ
Em ¼
m
ðDFÞn1 :ð Cm
Þn1 :E m m
n1 ðxn1 ; yn1 ; zn1 Þ: exp jk:Rðn1Þ!n
where M is the total number of rays that hit the object. After com-
ð5Þ
pleting the summation in Eq. (10), the scattered field is calculated at
!
th
the specified frequency and angle.
where E mn1 ðxn1 ; yn1 ; zn1 Þ is the electric field value at the ðn  1Þ
m m
hit point and P n1 ðxn1 ; yn1 ; zn1 Þ for the m ray. Here, ðDFÞn1 cor-
th
4. Validations using canonical shapes
responds to the ray tube divergence factor for the ðn  1Þth hit of the
mth ray. The DF spreads while rays are bouncing around the target Before implementation on aircraft models, it is desirable to
and the spreading of the rays causes the amplitude of the ray fields check the accuracy of the simulations on canonical objects whose
to decrease. In the above equation ðCÞm n1 is the reflection coefficient RCS have been obtained from actual measurements and available
at point P m
n1 for the mth
ray. For perfect electric conductors (PECs), in literature. The CAD model of the objects are implemented in
the magnitude of the reflection coefficient is unity. For planar OpenVSP [13], an open source parametric geometry modeling tool
surfaces of the PEC, the reflected field for the nth hit can be from NASA. These CAD models are used for RCS computation using
calculated by the SBR formulation outlined in Section 2. The simulator is tested

 for computing the monostatic RCS at different look angles and
! ! !
E ref ¼ E i
þ 2 ^s  E i
 ^s ð6Þ frequencies.
n n n

!
where E in is the incoming electric field before the nth bounce and
is the normal of the surface. The phase term in Eq. (5) refers to
the phase delay as the ray travels from point P n to Pn1 , in which
Rðn1Þ!n is the actual trip distance between these points. The GO
is not well suited for planar surfaces where according to Snell’s
law the reflected field tends to non-zero scattered field along
the specular direction. For the far-field set-up, if the incoming
wave is a plane wave, then the reflected wave is also a plane
wave. The scattering from a planar surface such as a plate occurs
in almost all directions but with different scattering amplitudes.
The numerical calculation of the RCS from an object in this paper
uses a Computer-Aided Design (CAD) modeling of this object and
is done with small patches of small planar surfaces. Therefore,
the abovementioned feature of GO can be problematic when
finding the scattered field from these small patches, as the
reflected wave propagates only along the specular direction. To
overcome this problem, the PO theory is used as shown in next
sub section.
4.1. Monostatic RCS of a flat plate
The backscattering is computed for different elevation angles
for the plate dimensions as shown in Fig. 2a. The EM backscattering
is calculated for different elevation angles ranging from h = 0° to
180°, while the azimuth angle is set to 0°. The incident wave is hor-
izontally polarized. The operating frequency is taken as 10 GHz so
that the electrical size of the plate is 12k. The specular return from
the plate is the large peak at 90°, which is predicted with quite
good accuracy. The dimensions of the plate are shown in Fig. 2b.
The sin x/x behavior characteristic of a uniformly illuminated aper-
ture is easily visualized. For validations, the simulated results are
compared with experimental results of [14] and plotted in red.
As can be seen good agreement has been obtained.
4.2. Monostatic RCS of a dihedral corner reflector
The dihedral corner reflector geometry as shown in Fig. 2c is
considered for validations with multiple bounces. This time the
470 S.M. Vaitheeswaran et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 467–481

Fig. 2. (a) Geometry of Flat Plate, (b) Monostatic RCS of Flat Plate, (c) Geometry of Corner Dihedral Reflector, (d. Monostatic RCS of Corner Dihedral Reflecto,r (e) Geometry of
Cone Sphere, (f) Monostatic RCS of Cone Sphere.

azimuth variation is considered for a fixed elevation angle as the same graph. Small differences between our results may be
shown in Fig. 2d. In contrast to the pattern of a flat plate, the due to the meshing parameters of the CAD files and the methods.
RCS pattern of a corner reflector is quite broad. This is true because
the corner reflector is a reentrant structure, and no matter what its
5. RCS OF delta flying wing planforms
orientation, internally reflected waves are directed back toward
the source of the incident wave. The broad central part of these
5.1. Model description
patterns is due to a multiple-bounce mechanism between the par-
ticipating faces, while the ‘‘ears” at the sides of the patterns are due
Unmanned flying wing aircrafts of different shapes are modeled
to the single-bounce, flat-plate scattering from the individual faces.
in OpenVSP [13]. Table 1 lists the number of surface cells used for
The backscattered results are compared with the experimental
discretization for the surface area considered.
results of Griesser [14] plotted in the same graph and found to
be in good agreement. Table 1
No. of cells for the different flying planform.

4.3. Monostatic RCS of a cone sphere Flying Wing Planform Area (m2) No of surface mesh
cells

The cone sphere illustrating fundamental characteristics of the 3 GHz 15 GHz

scattering such as discontinuities and the curvature of the surface Delta wing 36.9050 13,116 2,28,768
is considered next. The geometry and the CAD model are shown in Cropped Delta Wing 36.6727 12,952 2,26,020
Compound Delta Wing 36.1310 14,276 2,34,090
Fig. 2e. The RCS Variation with respect to azimuth is shown in
Cropped Compound Delta Wing 36.2033 13,554 2,31,587
Fig. 2f. For agreement, results of the geometry and RCS [12,14] pro- Diamond Wing 36.8443 13,376 2,33,831
vided in open literature are used and are plotted in dotted red in Lambda Wing 36.4174 14,212 2,28,482
 S.M. Vaitheeswaran et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 467–481
5.2. RCS simulation
The main objective is to study the RCS measurements which
aim to determine effective area responsible for backscatter when
hit by a radar wave. Using the SBR technique outlined in Section 3,
the RCS for different flying wing shapes (tailless fixed wing air-
craft) are evaluated and analyzed. The generated results are com-
pared in order to determine the planform that gives lowest RCS
value. Rays are shot towards the plate with k/20 density, where k
is wave length. The RCS is measured in three different planes i.e.
Yaw plane (/ = 0–360°, h = 90°), Roll Plane (h = 0–360°; / = 90°)
and Pitch plane (h = 0–360°; / = 0°) typically shown below in
Fig. 3, for the delta wing planform and at two different frequencies
3 GHz and 15 GHz and for different aspect angles. Figs. (7–9) shows
the angular dependence of the RCS in the three attitudes and the
effect of RCS shaping for all the configurations considered.
5.2.1. RCS Variation with frequency change
Figs. (4a, 4b), (5a, 5b) and (6a, 6b) shows the RCS variation at
the different aspects and the frequency dependence for the three
planar sweeps in yaw, roll and pitch respectively for all the plan-
forms considered. In the high frequency domain under considera-
tion, the object’s is due to frequency dependence of the phase
differences between fields scattered from the different parts of
the body over the object’s surface with change in the illumination
frequency. In the high frequency region, the complex target is con-
sidered as a collection of comer reflectors, edges, flat plates, cones,
etc producing an RCS that is the coherent summation of the RCS of
the individual scattering centers. The frequency dependence of the
RCS of individual scattering centers determines the target RCS. To
an approximation the RCS of a complex target with n scatter is
written as [15,16].
Xpffiffiffiffiffiffi
r¼j rn expðjUn Þj2
n
In the above, the difference in any phase shift produced by the
scattering center itself and the differences in range of the scatter-
ing centers from the radars is accounted by the phase angle Un .
Table 2 is a list of the common scattering center types and their
frequency dependence [16].
5.2.2. RCS Variation with change in shape for different aspects in angle
change
The shaping has a profound effect on the RCS characteristics as
can be seen from Table 3, Table 4a (3 GHz) and Table 4b (at
15 GHz). For the three planar sweeps in yaw, roll and pitch consid-
ered, the aspect dependence of each of the planforms are grouped
into nose aspects, side aspects and trailing edge (rear) aspects for
the yaw plane dependence; as wing tip scatter, top surface aspect
and bottom surface aspect for the roll plane change and finally as
nose-on aspects, top/bottom aspects and trailing edge aspect
dependence in the pitch plane. Trailing edge contributions are
Fig. 3. (a) Yaw Plane Sweep, (b) Roll Plane Sweep, (c) Pitch Plane Sweep.
471
excited by that component of the incident electric field perpendic-
ular to the edge.
5.2.2.1. Yaw plane aspect dependence. The yaw plane, includes the
pitch axis and the roll axis, is numbered from 0° to 360° in a coun-
terclockwise direction when the vehicle is viewed from the above.
The nose on aspects corresponds to 180°, the starboard of the vehi-
cle corresponds to 90 and 270° and the rear side is at 0°. In the head
direction (nose) of the aircraft, the azimuth angle corresponding to
the RCS peak is found to be the wing’s leading edges sweep. These
are mostly due to the fringe waves because of the diffracted fields
from the wedge, generated by the non-uniform/fringe surface cur-
rents concentrated in vicinity of sharp nose of the aircraft, and the
field follow the physical optics (PO) solution in the asymptotic
sense. The other dominant scatter is the base of the aircraft.
Figs. 4a, 4b show the aspect variations in the yaw plane for all
the planforms considered.
Aspect dependence for delta wing in yaw plane: For the delta
wing, the echoes weaken as the aspect angle moves away from
the nose on incidence. At 3 GHz the maximum RCS of 11.2 dBsm
is in the angular range of 120–150° and symmetrically in 210–
240°. The rear side of the wing exhibits RCS of 2.5dBsm in the
angular region 60–300°. At 15 GHz, peaks are higher in the angular
range of 120–150° and 210–240° and spikes appear at 90–270°.
Backscattered reflections from the rear portion is in the angular
range of 60–300° (5 dB).
Aspect dependence for cropped delta wing in yaw plane: For the
Cropped Wing case, the echoes seen are due to the fringe current
near the nose and the cropped ridge region of the wing in the angu-
lar region of 90–150° and symmetrically in the region of 210–270°.
At 15 GHz RCS is dominated by the cropped wing tips. Sharp spikes
can be observed at 90° and 270°. The maximum RCS at 15 GHz is
around 24.5 dB. The echoes from the nose on incidence with aspect
changes are confined to the end fire direction than to the broadside
when compared to the simple delta wing. The rear end of the flying
wing also contributes to the maximum RCS at 0° and ranging to
±30°.
Aspect dependence for compound delta wing in yaw plane: The
echoes are contributed both by the leading and the trailing angled
sides of the planform. As the frequency is increased to 15 GHz, RCS
variations are seen in the angular range of 90–150° and symmetri-
cally in the angular region of 210–270°. At 3 GHz RCS is around
10.9 dB and at 15 GHz RCS is 18.1 dB. The echoes due to the inter-
action of the flashpoints at the edges weaken in the shadowed
region of the base.
Aspect dependence for cropped compound delta wing in yaw plane:
Cropped compound delta wing is a combination of cropped and
compound delta wing. The RCS is very much higher because of
the angled side edges and cropped wing tips. In Yaw plane, at
3 GHz sharp and large reflections are seen at cropped wing tips
and angled side edges i.e. in the angular region of 90–150° and
symmetrically in the angular region of 210–270°. The rear end
472 S.M. Vaitheeswaran et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 467–481

Fig. 4a. Monostatic RCS of Flying Planforms: Yaw Plane.

which has a slight swept in configuration also contributes to sharp
reflections in the angular region of ±10°. At 3 GHz RCS is around,
13 dB and at 15 GHz RCS is 21.1 dB.
Aspect dependences for diamond delta wing in yaw plane: RCS has
more or less a flat response over all angles following the bicone
pattern and has a relatively much lower as expected than the delta
wing cone planform. Reflections are seen as expected in the angu-
lar region of 90–150° and symmetrically in the angular region of
210–270°.
Aspect dependences for lambda wing in yaw plane: Serrations are
known to reduce the surface wave contributions to the electro-
magnetic scattering from edges [16]. Lambda wing has a W shaped
 S.M. Vaitheeswaran et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 467–481 473

Fig. 4b. Monostatic RCS of Flying Planforms: Yaw Plane.

tail end. Large and sharp reflections are observed now only from 5.2.2.2. Roll plane aspects. The rotating movement on the longitudi-
the side aspects as it has one reflector less than a traditional delta nal axis running through the center of a plane from front to back is
wing configuration. At 3 GHz RCS is 7.3 dB and at 15 GHz RCS is known as roll. When an aircraft rolls, one edge of the wing rises or
11.4 dB. lowers relative to the other. In the current work, the roll plane
474 S.M. Vaitheeswaran et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 467–481

Fig. 5a. Monostatic RCS of Flying Planforms: Pitch Plane.

contains the pitch and yaw axis numbered from 0° to 360° moving
in the counter-clockwise direction when viewed from the rear. In
the roll plane, echoes from the wing tips and top and bottom
aspects dominate.
Aspect dependences for delta wing in roll plane: The maximum
backscattered spikes are observed in a small angular range of ±8°
at wing tips. The RCS is almost around 36.3dBsm at 3 GHz and
39.2dBsm at 15 GHz due to wing tips. In the broadside reflection
RCS is almost constant around 10 dB and is observed at 90–270°,
due to top and bottom surface reflections.
Aspect dependences for cropped delta wing in roll plane: At 3and
15 GHz, maximum RCS is observed at 0° and 180° from the top
and bottom surface of the flying wing. The RCS at the cropped wing
tips is almost a smooth curve in the roll plane, the RCS values at
 S.M. Vaitheeswaran et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 467–481 475

Fig. 5b. Monostatic RCS of Flying Planforms: Pitch Plane.

3 GHz being about 34.5 dB and at 15 GHz around 34.2 dB. Apart The top and bottom surface of the flying wing contribute to the
from top and bottom surface of the wing, sharp spikes also appear large RCS value at 0° and 180°. Sharp reflections are seen in the
in the cropped wing tip regions for the 15 GHz case at 90° and angular region ±10°. At 3 GHz the RCS value is around 36.9 dB
270°. Aspect Dependences for Compound delta wing in Roll Plane: and at 15 GHz the RCS value is at 52.4 dB.
476 S.M. Vaitheeswaran et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 467–481

Fig. 6a. Monostatic RCS of Flying Planforms: Roll Plane.

Aspect dependences for cropped compound delta wing in roll plane:
The RCS patterns has larger and smaller reflections depending
upon back scattered energy from the corresponding surface area.
The top and bottom surface of the planform contributes to the
large reflections in the angular region of ±30°. Maximum RCS value
is observed at 0° and 180°. Small and continues are observed at the
cropped wing tips. At 3 GHz RCS is around 35.9 dB and at 15 GHz
the RCS value is around 39.9 dB.
Aspect dependences for diamond wing in roll plane: Maximum RCS
with significant reflections are observed at 0° and 180°, in the
 S.M. Vaitheeswaran et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 467–481 477

Fig. 6b. Monostatic RCS of Flying Planforms: Roll Plane.

angular region of ±10°. RCS patterns with smaller spikes are dis- Aspect dependences for lambda plane: Major RCS is contributed
tributed at all aspect angles. RCS at wing tips have sharper spikes by the top and bottom surfaces at aspect angle, 0° and 180°.
compared to the top and bottom surfaces. RCS values at 3 GHz is Smaller spikes are present at all aspect angles. At 3 GHz and
around 35.7 dB and at 15 GHz RCS is 41.8 dB. 15 GHz, RCS is about 37.6 dB and 34.5 dB respectively.
478 S.M. Vaitheeswaran et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 467–481

Fig. 7. Aspect dependence for nose on incidence in the yaw plane for the different planforms.

Fig. 8. Aspect dependence in the roll plane for the different planforms.
 S.M. Vaitheeswaran et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 467–481 479

Fig. 9. Aspect dependence for nose on incidence in the pitch plane for the different planforms.

Table 2 symmetrically in the angular region of 170–180°. At 15 GHz, apart

Common Scattering centers and their frequency dependence.
from the large RCS contribution by top and bottom surfaces at 0°
Scattering-Center Type RCS and 180°, the nose and tip of the flying wing also contribute to
Dependence the backscattering in the angular region of 60–120° and 240–300°.
Double Corner reflector f
2
rmax ¼ 8pwk22 h
2
Aspect dependences for cropped delta wing in pitch plane: The top
4pw2 h and bottom surface of the cropped delta wing contributes to a RCS
Flat plate 2
rmax ¼
2
f
k2
2prh
of 52.3 dB and 50.8 maximum and 50.8 dB at 3 GHz and 15 GHz
Cylinder (or any singly curved surface) 1
rmax ¼
2
f k respectively. The nose and rear end contribute very less to RCS,
Sphere (or any doubly curved surface) f
0
rmax ¼ pr 2
which can be observed at 90° and 270°.
Curved Edge f
1 rmax ¼ 2kap
Aspect dependences for compound delta wing in pitch plane: RCS
Cone tip f
2
rmax ¼ k2 sin4 ða=2Þ
around the front of planform is smooth and gradually increasing.
The trailing edge contributed to sharp small reflections. Large
RCS value is contributed from both top and bottom surfaces of
5.2.2.3. Pitch plane aspects. Pitch is the angle of the nose of a plane the wing in the angular region of 0° and 180°. At 3 GHz the maxi-
relative to the ground The pitch plane, which contains the roll axis mum RCS is around 52.4 dB. At 15 GHz, apart from smooth and
and the yaw axis is numbered from 0° to 360°; the 270° point is gradual variation in RCS unlike 3 GHz, there are small spikes pre-
below the center line, and the 90° point is above the center line. sent at nose of wing and sharp spikes at trailing edge of the wing.
Aspect dependences for delta wing in pitch plane: In pitch plane The RCS is around 48.4 dB at this particular frequency.
the top and bottom surface contribute to large RCS values of about Aspect dependences for cropped compound delta wing in pitch
48 dB at 3 GHz and RCS is in the angular region of 0–10° and plane: The overall surface of the planform contributes to sharp

Table 3
Maximum RCS dBsm for different planforms.

Flying Wing Planform RCS (dBsm)

Yaw Plane Roll Plane Pitch Plane
3 GHz 15 GHz 3 GHz 15 GHz 3 G GHz 15 GHz
Delta wing 11.2 12.5 36.3 39.2 44.9 47.7
Compound 10.9 18.1 36.9 41.4 52.4 48.4
Cropped Compound 13 21.1 35.9 39.9 41.6 35.6
Cropped Delta 11.0 24.5 34.5 34.2 52.3 50.8
Diamond Delta 7.1 5.1 35.7 41.8 44.3 44.7
Lambda 7.3 11.4 37.6 34.5 41.6 45
480 S.M. Vaitheeswaran et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 467–481

Table 4a
RCS Variation with Aspect Angle Change for the different planforms at 3 GHz.

Wing Planform YAW ROLL PITCH

(f = 3 GHz)
Side Aspects Nose On Trail Edge Wing Tips Top Surface Bottom Surface Top/Bottom Nose On Trail Edge
(dBsm) (dBsm) (dBsm) Aspects (dBsm) (dBsm) (dBsm) Aspects (dBsm) (dBsm) (dBsm)
DELTA 11.2 dBsm 32 dBsm 2.5 dBsm 1 dBsm 36.3 dBsm 35 dBsm Top-39 dBsm 10.7 dBsm 11 dBsm
120–150° 170–200° ± 0–10° 90° ± 0–10° 180° 0° 90° 255–285°
210–240° 270° Bottom-44.9 dBsm
180°
CROPPED DELTA 10.9 dBsm 32 dBsm 9.5 dBsm 12 dBsm 33 dBsm 34.5 dBsm Top-44.5 dBsm 5.4 dBsm 13 dBsm
90–140° 170–200° ± 0–10° 90° ± 0–10° 180° 0° 90° 255–285°
220–270° 270° Bottom-52.3 dBsm
180°
COMPOUD DELTA 7.2 dBsm 23 dBsm 6 dBsm 9 dBsm 35.2 dBsm 36.9 dBsm Top-40 dBsm 18 dBsm 14 dBsm
90–150° 170–200° ± 0–10° 90° ± 0–10° 180° 0° 90° 240–300°
220–270° 270° Bottom-52.4 dBsm
180°
CROPPED COMPOUD 13 dBsm 28 dBsm 9 dBsm 9 dBsm 33 dBsm 35.9 dBsm Top-40 dBsm 1 dBsm 4 dBsm
DELTA 85–160° 170–200° ± 0–10° 90° ± 0–10° 180° 0° 90° 255–280°
200–275° 270° Bottom-51.6 dBsm
180°
DIAMOND WING 7 dBsm 26 dBsm 7.1 dBsm 5 dBsm 35 dBsm 35.7 dBsm Top-25 dBsm 8.5 dBsm 7 dBsm
90–160° 160–210° ± 0–25° 90° ± 0–10° 180° 0° 90° 255–265°
210–270° 270° Bottom-44.3 dBsm
180°
LAMBDA WING 7.3 dBsm 20 dBsm 6 dBsm 6 dBsm 37.6 dBsm 36 dBsm Top-41.6 dBsm 5 dBsm 7.3 dBsm
90–170° 160–190° ± 0–45° 90° ± 0–10° 180° 0° 90° 255–280°
200–270° 270° Bottom-40 dBsm
180°

Table 4b
RCS Variation with Aspect Angle Change for the different planforms at 15 GHz

Wing Planform YAW ROLL PITCH

(f = 15 GHz)
Side Aspects Nose On Trail Edge Wing Tips Top Surface Bottom Top/Bottom Nose On Trail Edge
(dBsm) (dBsm) (dBsm) Aspects (dBsm) (dBsm) Surface (dBsm) Aspects (dBsm) (dBsm) (dBsm)
DELTA 12.5 dBsm 33 dBsm 9 dBsm 19 dBsm 36 dBsm 39.2 dBsm Top-47.4 dBsm 5 dBsm 2.2 dBsm
90–130° 170–200° ± 0–10° 90° ± 0–10° 180° 0° 90° 255–285°
230–270° 270° Bottom-42.5 dBsm
180°
CROPPED DELTA 24.5 dBsm 32 dBsm 15 dBsm 24 dBsm 34.2 dBsm 28 dBsm Top-48 dBsm 10 dBsm 9 dBsm
90–120° 170–200° ± 0–5° 90° ± 0–10° 180° 0° 90° 255–285°
210–270° 270° Bottom-50.8 dBsm
180°
COMPOUD DELTA 3 dBsm 21.4 dBsm 18 dBsm 21 dBsm 41.4 dBsm 37.5 dBsm Top-43 dBsm 19 dBsm 10 dBsm
90–150° 170–200° ± 0–10° 90° ± 0–10° 180° 0° 90° 255–285°
210–270° 270° Bottom-58.4 dBsm
180°
CROPPED COMPOUD 21.1 dBsm 28.5 dBsm 15 dBsm 21 dBsm 39.3 dBsm 39.9 dBsm Top-35.6 dBsm 7 dBsm 12 dBsm
DELTA 90–160° 170–200° ± 0–10° 90° ± 0–10° 180° 0° 90° 260–270°
200–270° 270° Bottom-32 dBsm
180°
DIAMOND WING 4 dBsm 36 dBsm 5.1 dBsm 10 dBsm 35 dBsm 41.8 dBsm Top-20 dBsm 11 dBsm 10 dBsm
90–150° 160–210° ± 0–25° 90° ± 0–10° 180° 0° 90° 255–260°
210–270° 270° Bottom-44.7 dBsm
180°
LAMBDA WING 11.4 dBsm 7 dBsm 9 dBsm 9 dBsm 35.4 dBsm 25 dBsm Top-45.0 dBsm 3 dBsm 1.2 dBsm
110–160° 150–200° ± 0–45° 90° ± 0–5° 180° 0° 90° 280–270°
200–250° 270° Bottom-37 dBsm
180°

reflections. Larger reflections are observed at front end of top and
bottom surface of the wing. At 3 GHz the RCS is value is around
41.6 dB and at 15 GHz RCS is at 35.6 dB. At higher frequencies
the reflections are much sharper and stronger compared to the
lower frequency. Larger reflections can be observed in the angular
region of ± 10°.
Aspect dependences for diamond wing in pitch plane: Maximum
RCS contributed are from the top and bottom surface of the dia-
mond shaped flying wings. Sharp reflections are seen at aspect
angle 90° and 270° from the nose and tail of the wing. RCS at
3 GHz and 15 GHz are 44.3 dB and 44.7 dB respectively.
Aspect dependences for lambda wing in pitch plane: Nose on and
trailing edge contribute to sharp and strong spikes whereas, top
and bottom surface contribute to large RCS. At 3 GHz RCS is
around, 41.6 dB and at 15 GHz RCS is around 45 dB.
6. Conclusion
A primary aim of the paper is to provide to the aircraft designer
of fifth generation aircrafts, a data base for the echoing (radar
returns) for delta and its variants using the shooting and bouncing
ray technique. Six type of planforms found in typical fighter/
 S.M. Vaitheeswaran et al. / Engineering Science and Technology, an International Journal 20 (2017) 467–481
bomber aircrafts have been considered for analysis and from the
perspective of aircraft rotational manoeuvres in the pitch, roll
and yaw attitude planes. Initially examinations and validations
have been done for the flat plate, the corner reflector, the cone
sphere using available data published in literature, which are later
extended to study different delta wing planforms.
For the planforms considered, RCS is dominated by the shape of
the planforms and an accurate knowledge of the RCS is essential in
all the three planes of pitch, roll and yaw. For the delta wing RCS is
dominated by the nose wedge diffraction generated by the non-
uniform/fringe surface currents concentrated in vicinity of sharp
nose/tip of the aircraft, and deflected by the wing’s leading edges
sweep. For the cropped delta wing, the cropped portion of the
wings also contribute adding to the slanted sides of the wing. For
the compound delta, the dominant mechanisms are due to the
multiple bounces from the leading and trailing slanted sides form-
ing a retroreflector. The diamond wing has a pattern similar to a
bicone resembling that of a sphere with lower RCS while the
lambda wing has a reduced RCS because of lesser scattering from
the discontinuous serrated edges. In the roll plane, echoes from
the wing tips and top and bottom aspects dominate. Maximum
RCS contributed are from the top and bottom surface for the pitch
plane approximating the RCS of a triangular plated for broadside
incidence.
In conclusion, results show that the cropped compound delta
wing planforms and the diamond delta planforms have better
low observability characteristics in different sweep planes but
the lambda W-tail flying planform has an optimal performance
in all the three sweep planes and at both higher and lower
frequency bands considered for analysis.
481
References
[1] C. Nickel, M. Wohlfahrt, Tailless Aircraft-In Theory and Practice American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc, 1994. Washington DC.
[2] R. Martinez-Val, E. Perez, Optimum cruise lift coefficient in initial design of jet
aircraft, J. Aircraft 129 (4) (1999) 712–714.
[3] R. Martinez-Val, E. Perez, P. Alfaro, J. Perez, Conceptual design of a medium size
flying wing. Proc. IMechE, 221Part G, J. Aerosp. Eng. 3 (2006) 134–142.
[4] Lloyd R. Jenkinson, Paul Simpkin, Darren Rhodes, Civil Jet Aircraft Design,
Arnold, London, 1999.
[5] Quest for Performance: The Evolution of Modern Aircraft, Volume 468 of NASA
SP, Scientific and Technical Information Branch, National Aeronautics and
Space Administration, 1985 url:https://history.nasa.gov/SP-468/ch10-4.htm.
[6] K.M. Dorsett, D.R. Mehl, Innovative Control Effectors (ICE), Wright Laboratory
Report, WL-TR-96-3043, 1996.
[7] S.A. Aucello, Aerodynamic Implications of the Requirement for a Stealthy
Aircraft, AERO2365 Thesis/Project, School of Aerospace, Mech. &
Manufacturing Eng., RMIT University, VIC, 3001, AUSTRALIA, 2007.
[8] <www.topedge.com/panels/aircraft/sites/kraft/data.htm>.
[9] <www.eurofighter.com/>.
[10] <www.tejas.gov.in/>.
[11] H. Ling, R.-C. Chou, S.-W. Lee, Shooting and bouncing rays: calculating the RCS
of an arbitrarily shaped cavity, IEEE Trans. Antennas Propag. 37 (2) (1989)
194–205.
[12] C. Özdemir, B. Yılmaz, Ö. Kırık, PRediCS: A new GO-PO based ray launching
simulator for the calculation of electromagnetic scattering and RCS from
electrically large and complex structures, Turkish, J. Elect. Eng. Comput. Sci. 22
(5) (2014) 1255–1269.
[13] url: <https://software.nasa.gov/featuredsoftware/openvsp>.
[14] T. Griesser, C.A. Balanis, Backscatter analysis of dihedral corner reflectors using
physical optics and the physical theory of diffraction, IEEE Trans. Antennas
Propag. 35 (1985) 1137–1147.
[15] X.Y. He, X.B. Wang, Y.Y. Zhou, B. Zhao, T.J. Cui, Fast ISAR image simulation of
targets at arbitrarily aspect angles using a novel SBR method, in: Progr.
Electromagn. Res. B 28 (2011) 129–142.
[16] Radar Handbook: third ed., McGraw-Hill Professional | 2008 | ISBN:
0071485470.