What's the point of having a low-shock-noise BOMBER? So you don't
disturb the peaceful sleep of the same guys you just bombed? The
technology is being investigated for overland supersonic transports,
not stike a/c.

Yeah yeah, Low Observable can also mean acoustic, sure... in
principle. In reality, however: 1) No amount of shock dissipation will
make the plane silent/undetectable. 2) No missile/search system tracks
via soundwaves.

QSF and a bomber project have nothing in common.

Paul F Austin wrote...
I wrote
I just saw another article on the "Popular Science" website about a
research program Northrop Grumman has been running with the goal of
quieter supersonic aircraft. Last year, they did some test runs with
an aerodynamically-modified F-5E Tiger II that were promising.
Perhaps they'll take what they learned and apply them to the YF-23
revival plan.

That's unlikely. The QSF techniques involve moving the shocks around to gain
cancellation. In the QSF F-5, that meant a loooong nose. It's unlikely that
you can have a QSF shape that's also stealthy.

I'm looking over the pictures of the F-5 demonstrator and don't really
see any real problems per se. The nose on the demonstrator isn't much
longer than the original one...the main difference is the fuselage is
much deeper.

A deeper fuse on the YF-23 design would mean a significantly larger
payload bay for air-to-ground weapons. I think this deepened fuselage
can be tailored to be low-observable and still reap the benefits of
the improved aero-acoustics.