Nifty name, though, “plasma stealth,” sounds so. . . .what. . . .oh yeah, “X-File”-ish.
Link to the original article please, not some promo site dedicated to disinformation-—and from 2004? Four years ago? A little more recent would be nice.
They simply do not have the technology because “plasma” was found ineffective.
But hey, knock themselves out trying to make a whale of a metal jet “stealthy. They could do much better by a few engineering modifications.
LOLOL!! Not saying plasma stealth is all that great. Just saying it exists, and we’ve been using it on all of our fighters. In fact, we use spray cans of the stuff on our F-18’s right now. The guys on the carriers go out and spray it on like spray paint.
But don’t believe me. Keep thinking I’m talking about x-files or something. HEHE! :-D
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_stealth
...
Plasma stealth technology also faces various technical problems. For example, the plasma itself emits EM radiation. Also, it takes some time for plasma to be re-absorbed by the atmosphere and a trail of ionized air would be created behind the moving aircraft. Thirdly, plasmas (like glow discharges or fluorescent lights) tend to emit a visible glow: this is not necessarily compatible with overall low observability. Furthermore, it is likely to be difficult to produce a radar-absorbent plasma around an entire aircraft traveling at high speed. However, a substantial reduction of an aircraft's RCS may be achieved by generating radar-absorbent plasma around the most reflective surfaces of the aircraft, such as the turbojet engine fan blades, engine air intakes, and vertical stabilizers.
...
Doesn't sound like something that can be applied with a spray can, though.