 |
The 1 value is the one of the F16 any other values must be scaled accordingly to the F16 real RCS in m2. |
 |
Yes and as stated above I determined from testing that the RCS value is 5^(setvalue)=RCS. Now if we set a value of 2 we should see a 0000029:0000050% increase in detection range over a value of 1. Which from my testing is exactly what you see. It was also confirmed on the forums by another mod that the F16 RCS is 5m^2 in game. However if you then look at the values for most of the jets they tend to be slightly low to very low. With really only the F16 being accurate. |
|
|
You are using the correct formula to convert from RL RCS to 'Falcon' RCS in the DB. However I dont agree with all of your findings. This is a complicated issue, because RCS values are : - dependent on a lot of things : aspect, radar band all pay a role - difficult to simulate and obtain in the public literature, especially for higher bands and military aircraft. It is not uncommon to see a 10 factor between 2 values from 2 seemingly reputable sources for the same aircrafts. Ex : http://www.users.globalnet.co.uk/~dheb/2300/Articles/PG/PGSA.htm https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321082973_Early_Warning_Against_Stealth_Aircraft_Missiles_and_Unmanned_Aerial_Vehicles In this, for example, the F-16 RCS was simulated in the X band and is closer to 0.5-1m² depending on aspect. Operating under the assumption that F-16 = 1m² : - bigger/older aircrafts (F-14, SU-27, AV8B Mig21) can be between 5/10 m², giving up to twice the detection range in game. IMO we can adjust between them depending on physical size and some qualitative ideas like 'are the fan blades exposed', etc. So on that, I completely agree that we could increase RCS for those. - for the Superhornet, I disagree with the 0,1m², because A/ it is bigger than the F-16 without a ton of work going into RCS reduction (gun port, IFF array stil sticking out, etc), B/ if we assume a 0.1m² size for fuel tanks or heavy weapons (as is usually reported), the typical F-18E RCS will at least be that. Indeed, since the BMS RCS is not dependent on loadout, we should use a RCS with a typical loadout. eg some missiles and fuel tanks. All told that will likely give 1m² as well. - for the Apache, although bare RCS can be big, the fact that it is very slow and hugs the ground will affect its detection range by a typical fighter radar. So we should account for that in the 'Falcon RCS'. Finally this is a topic where we should keep consistency between all aircraft's RCS and also check consistency with radar detection ranges. That being said if you are up for a global check of this and a more complete proposal, we can take a look :) |
|
|
I'd heard many times before now that the super hornet, despite being larger than the legacy hornet, has a much reduced RCS, due to quite a bit of effort spent on RCS reduction in development. Perhaps I should open a feature request issue for RCS tables which vary based on aspect. |
|
|
Yes they can be difficult to obtain but so far I've seen simulation data largely be in the same ballpark, the first source you listed has no sources for where they got their RCS values and shouldn't be trusted because of that. Additionally they choose a value of 1.2m^2 for their F16 RCS which they base a few other jets values off of. But as we can see from the second source this is not an accurate value except for very certain aspects. I think that the values I listed are quite reasonable. For frontal RCS values, like the F16 is currently in BMS, where in a frontal arch average RCS is ~5m^2. All that matters if its right or wrong and the SU-27/mig-29/F15/F14/AV8B/MIG-23/F4 having nearly, or exactly, the same RCS as the F16 doesn't make much sense. I think BMS could reasonable add a RCS 0°, 45°, 90°, and 180° value. Make it so that jets we have more data on can have it added. And other could just use a single value. |
- Anonymous
