Radar Tests: VERY VERY unusual results.

[*Rage*]

Thats the trouble with this hobby. Sources that stand scrutiny are very rare indeed. 99% of the 'sources' posted here would be in-admissable in a scientific discussion for a number of reasons.

[Eihort]

To expect anything even approaching scientific discussion is a pipe dream. Not even real intelligence analysts work with data that good.

[Kuky]

I posted this in tester's section but I have not seen any reply/interest from ED so I might as well post it here

 

Basically I found this website of some Turkish professor that seems to have created simulation for RCS of an object based on its shape... and one guy that has tried it seems to show it works pretty well (see here: http://stealthflanker.deviantart.com...ison-214718027)

 

I downloaded the software and there are few sample shapes in 3DS format (says this format works only) but I have no clue how to use it, also as I think this is 32bit software it might not work (well) on 64bit O/S.

 

Anyone want to give it a crack? It doesn't require any installation, it's just 3 exe files (Model_RCS.exe seems to be the one that calculates the RCS)

 

here's where I got it from:

http://www3.dogus.edu.tr/lsevgi/

 

Simulation software download link:

http://www3.dogus.edu.tr/lsevgi/LSev...ds/MGL_RCS.zip

 

Sample 3DS shapes:

http://www3.dogus.edu.tr/lsevgi/LSev..._3DSMODELS.zip

 

If someone can get it to work, I think we can have good tool to get good estimates on RCS of different aircraft... it just needs not very detailed 3DS shape of the aircraft... run the simulation (who figures out how to do it) and use it for DCS RCS values...that's if you can figure out how to use it

[GGTharos]

No, you cannot. You won't even know if they're close, since you have nothing to compare them to.

 

I think we can have good tool to get good estimates on RCS of different aircraft...

[Kuky]

No, you cannot. You won't even know if they're close, since you have nothing to compare them to.

 

Sure you can... if using this tool you come up with RCS of an aircraft and compare that to what is suggested on the internet, you can have something to compare the result with, that would be a start wouldn't it? And you really surprise me sometimes with your statements GG... there are sources on the internet, no matter if you know if they are accurate or not, some surely are fairly accurate, and mind you all I am after is way to get good estimate for RCS based on aircraft shape (for non-stealth tech airframes which we don't have in DCS anyway), which apparently this tool is providing. You haven't even tried it, you straight away dismiss it... not good mate

[GGTharos]

You want to start by comparing shapes which aren't 'all that accurate', without taking materials into account, without having a reference ... you're surprised at me why exactly?

The only reason we can even talk about missiles for example is because we have a very solid reference, and now, people who are experts in the field.

Who/what do you have in this respect when it comes to RCS, and finally, why does it even matter right now? We don't even know at what ranges some of the radars we have detect a target of given RCS.

 

Sure you can... if using this tool you come up with RCS of an aircraft and compare that to what is suggested on the internet, you can have something to compare the result with, that would be a start wouldn't it? And you really surprise me sometimes with your statements GG... there are sources on the internet, no matter if you know if they are accurate or not, some surely are fairly accurate, and mind you all I am after is way to get good estimate for RCS based on aircraft shape (for non-stealth tech airframes which we don't have in DCS anyway), which apparently this tool is providing. You haven't even tried it, you straight away dismiss it... not good mate

[Kuky]

I am surprised that you dismiss things straight away like that, and why mention materials into account, like I said the shape can be used to determine RCS of airframes (this is known already and nothing new) that do not have stealth tech (materials) built into it, and I said we don't have such aircraft in DCS like that anyway (they are all conventional airframes with no stealth tech - beside F-117 and B-1 that do have stealth tech).

 

All I am saying is that if you can have this tool working, and for known aircraft (that you do know RCS of) it matches (or is very close to) known RCS value, then you can say if this tool works or not.. and if it does, there's an open door to start using it to find (at least good aproximate) RCS for other conventional airframes... ED do have quite accurate shapes of lot of them, at least flyable ones that matter the most... with their 3ds model used in the tool... why not try it at least?

[Weta43]

I'd have thought that if the tool is well made it would at least give you information on relative RCS, & some info on orders of magnitude.

It might be relatively complicated, but leaving aside stealth coatings etc, it's well understood physics...

[TAW_Blaze]

I like it but I think there's a bigger fundamental problem here that has to be solved before we move on, and that is the radar itself. Right now they are very much simplified and I don't think it's any good to try and make a complex RCS system while the radars don't work properly.

[Weta43]

Chicken and egg ...

[RIPTIDE]

I am surprised that you dismiss things straight away like that, and why mention materials into account, like I said the shape can be used to determine RCS of airframes (this is known already and nothing new) that do not have stealth tech (materials) built into it, and I said we don't have such aircraft in DCS like that anyway (they are all conventional airframes with no stealth tech - beside F-117 and B-1 that do have stealth tech).

 

All I am saying is that if you can have this tool working, and for known aircraft (that you do know RCS of) it matches (or is very close to) known RCS value, then you can say if this tool works or not.. and if it does, there's an open door to start using it to find (at least good aproximate) RCS for other conventional airframes... ED do have quite accurate shapes of lot of them, at least flyable ones that matter the most... with their 3ds model used in the tool... why not try it at least?

I downloaded a F-15 3ds model and used the tool. It works. But i have no idea how to interpret the data correctly. As you can imagine, it is CPU intensive even for the small model I used. I can only guess how long it might take to process on a 100k+ poly model. :helpsmilie:

[lunaticfringe]

I am surprised that you dismiss things straight away like that, and why mention materials into account, like I said the shape can be used to determine RCS of airframes (this is known already and nothing new) that do not have stealth tech (materials) built into it, and I said we don't have such aircraft in DCS like that anyway (they are all conventional airframes with no stealth tech - beside F-117 and B-1 that do have stealth tech.

 

Materials count by a large factor, as do coatings. There are any number of composite construction techniques that are used for both their structural strength as well as their RCS reduction performance; some of the best known in the business, and least recognized outside of it, are found on the F/A-18E/F/G. What you would get by merely treating the entire skin as aluminum is large percentages of dB higher than what is actually generated by the machine.

 

But like I say- people don't think of the Super Hornet as a "stealthy" aircraft; yet, to realize that there are such factors in play and not think they pollinate back across forces in the form of "upgrades" is a tad naive.

 

Would I mind employment of such data used in a new model of radar for DCS? No. But doing it properly is going to demand hundreds, if not thousands of data points included; looking at it in even 5 degree increments of aspect around the whole aircraft generates 5184 values. And that's a baseline level of precision required to do it right.

[Frostie]

Regardless of materials i'm sure the tests could give some interesting results such as comparing the in game shape of an F-15 with a MiG-29. Though not actual real life data it is data that could be as good as anything else available.

[Frostie]

You hit the nail on the head in regards to the complexity a more accurate radar would require. Though, I must say I'd pony up quite a bit of cash for a kickstarter fund to accurately model an AN/APG 63 v.3 AESA in all its glory. :)

I think he meant the complexity of how the actual generic in game radar reacts with objects rather than what an individual radars capabilities are.

 

To accurately model an AN/APG63(v)3 would be impossible, it is about 5 years since it was introduced and is the most advanced radar ever fitted to an F-15C with only 46 being delivered to the USAF and ANG. The best we could hope for like most radars is a best guess approximation.

[GGTharos]

Frostie, we can't even get reliable figures for APG-63 in terms of detection beyond 'we see helis sitting on the ground at 50nm'. There are a couple other sources but sadly, there are no hard numbers (as in science).

[lunaticfringe]

Frostie, we can't even get reliable figures for APG-63 in terms of detection beyond 'we see helis sitting on the ground at 50nm'. There are a couple other sources but sadly, there are no hard numbers (as in science).

 

However, there is the ability to propagate from such anecdotal evidence; devise your dB generation methodology, and then work that as a return number through the equation in reverse to get raw emitter power.

 

If you're picking up high dB Bears out at 150+ miles, and helo rotors on the ground at fifty, you can then start building good operational values from which to create your new model on.

[Pilotasso]

Your logic is sound when looking up without clutter. The problem lies that when looking down at clutter the same radar with 2 different processors will yeld different results.

[lunaticfringe]

I think he meant the complexity of how the actual generic in game radar reacts with objects rather than what an individual radars capabilities are.

 

Its more a matter of assessing accurately how to work the problem. You could halve the table values based purely on reciprocal aspect, but then also need to rework them for every possible stores configuration (or teach the engine how to compensate for obstruction based on visible percentages of exposed weapons).

 

If you were willing to dare the requirement of SLI/Crossfire, or even just dual GPU availability, I've long thought that the right method would be in overlapping the visual model with the radar model; it all boils down to reproducing wavelength energy loss over range. It would require systems capable of generating massive pre-loads to work, and you can't force your clientele to do it thus. But it would be a chance at making it work in a truly realistic fashion, at least as far as being consistent to the rules of how radars function. One could also then state the power and frequency values used to generate the results, alleviating any concern from governments that something was stolen, since the estimations could be proofed mathematically to show the nature of the bad data reverse engineering techniques used.

[Mizzy]

So me and a friend of mine did some very extensive testing of the Su-27 and F-15 in BVR. Testing was done at 45,000feet and as close to equal speed as we could get. Radars were tested in modes.

 

Results

 

I was under the impression that F-15's radar is much better than the Su-27s. Everything I have read both from books, magazines, this forum etc. has backed that up. What we found was odd. at 45k, the F-15 detects the flanker only a few moments before the flanker picks it up. It obtains lock only a few moments before, and it gets launch authority for the 120 just a few moments before. All tests were conducted multiple times, and from a head on angle. Both planes locked on at about 55 miles. Detection at about 60-70

 

Anyone know what is going on?

 

Did you read independent books/magazines or take into account the Russian superiority over the F15. Just a thought.

 

Mizzy

[104th_Maverick]

or take into account the Russian superiority over the F15. Just a thought.

 

What are you smoking mate?

 

:megalol: