F-35: Gets better over time?

[unhappycamper]

http://www.pjstar.com/blogs/kravetz/x1440176983/F-35-Gets-better-over-time

F-35: Gets better over time?
Updated 4 hour(s) ago

The F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, supposed to come into service in 2008, cost less than current fighters and do everything under the sun, hasn't lived up to expectations, to say the least. It's gone way overbudget and there are problems with the technology.

However, Wired's Danger Room had a post Tuesday that was amazing. Over time, wear and tear on the plane will make it better, not worse. Really? Check out this quote from a Lockheed Veep:

In the latest issue of Air Force magazine, O’Bryan insisted the single-engine JSF, which is projected to cost $1 trillion to develop, buy and maintain, is fundamentally different than its predecessors. “The surface material smooths out over time, slightly reducing the F-35’s original radar signature, according to the Lockheed Martin official,” John Tirpak wrote.

Find that hard to believe given the wear and tear on everything else causes maintenance issues. I am not a plane guy but his is hard to believe. Anyone out there with more knowledge care to weight in on it?

[DetlefK]

1. surfaces and radar

1. You need a surface that's nanostructured in a way to diffuse and absorb radar. This means, the surface has to be rough on a nanolevel. -> The black color of the B2 and the F117 is a side-effect of these kinds of paints and coatings.

2. You need a surface that consists of planes standing in angles to each other. The sharper the edges, and the more edges, the better. That way, the incoming radar-beam gets split up into many reflections in different directions and way less is reflected back to the antenna.


Maybe the surface gets better with age (I don't know what kind of coating they use. Soot-nanoparticles?), but I can't imagine that a smoothing-process would be advantageous.