reported earlier F16 wingtip RCS opinion

[rocaf2003]

I got a HFSS F16A RCS sim(wingtip2×AIM9X+full metal material airframe),Here is the link:https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2022/08/17/f-16a-radar-scattering-simulation/

It shows that even though the F16 carries two AIM9X on its wingtips and is made of metal without any RAM that is perfect for fully reflecting radar waves, the forward RCS is still only 0.9m2. Given that this model is missing some small details (antennas on the nose and tail, lights on the fuselage, the missile on the wing tip should be AIM120, etc.), but with the help of Have Glsss2 I think the RCS of the F16 will still not exceed 1.0m2, which seems to fit very well with the data circulating on the network. So I think the option should be set: the F16 has the RCS option of 2×AIM120 attached to the wingtip, and if the player chooses to apply this option, the system will automatically reduce the RCS of the F16 to 1.0m2 if the course allows (two aircraft head to head).

[Hobel]

vor 15 Minuten schrieb rocaf2003:

I got a HFSS F16A RCS sim(wingtip2×AIM9X+full metal material airframe),Here is the link:https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2022/08/17/f-16a-radar-scattering-simulation/

It shows that even though the F16 carries two AIM9X on its wingtips and is made of metal without any RAM that is perfect for fully reflecting radar waves, the forward RCS is still only 0.9m2. Given that this model is missing some small details (antennas on the nose and tail, lights on the fuselage, the missile on the wing tip should be AIM120, etc.), but with the help of Have Glsss2 I think the RCS of the F16 will still not exceed 1.0m2, which seems to fit very well with the data circulating on the network. So I think the option should be set: the F16 has the RCS option of 2×AIM120 attached to the wingtip, and if the player chooses to apply this option, the system will automatically reduce the RCS of the F16 to 1.0m2 if the course allows (two aircraft head to head).

Currently, not all radars in DCS RCS can recognize differences.

 

F16/18 radars, for example, cannot do this.

I know from F15E/M2000 that RCS is taken into account. Therefore, what you are describing could actually work for these radars.

 

As an example: a naked F16 can be detected with HPRF at ~70nm, fully loaded it is then already ~110nm

 

I have not yet tested whether the type of payload makes a difference, but it could well be possible.

[NineLine]

This is already reported internally, thanks. 

[rocaf2003]

1 minute ago, Hobel said:

目前，并非所有 DCS RCS 中的雷达都能识别差异。

 

例如，F16/18 雷达就无法做到这一点。

我从 F15E/M2000 得知，RCS 已被考虑在内。因此，您所描述的方法实际上可以适用于这些雷达。

 

举例来说：裸露的 F16 可以用 HPRF 在 ~70nm 处检测到，满载时则已经在 ~110nm 处检测到。

 

我还没有测试过有效载荷的类型是否会产生影响，但很有可能。

Yeah,I just say that this is a way to reduce RCS in a way that is closer to RL, and honestly there should be such a specific value for Az/El 360º..... Because in rl is so, but I feel that it is a little difficult to achieve, so only do the head-on Angle of rcs

5 minutes ago, NineLine said:

This is already reported internally, thanks. 

Yeah,You can  also try to build damage models for the engine and FLCS, for a few very simple examples, when the ENG FEED is closed to do negative G maneuvers, F16 did not appear fuel cut-off situation, after high speed dive + high G pull up engine and FLCS did not appear any damage

[NineLine]

23 hours ago, rocaf2003 said:

Yeah,I just say that this is a way to reduce RCS in a way that is closer to RL, and honestly there should be such a specific value for Az/El 360º..... Because in rl is so, but I feel that it is a little difficult to achieve, so only do the head-on Angle of rcs

Yeah,You can  also try to build damage models for the engine and FLCS, for a few very simple examples, when the ENG FEED is closed to do negative G maneuvers, F16 did not appear fuel cut-off situation, after high speed dive + high G pull up engine and FLCS did not appear any damage

You can make a bug report about that with more information and I would be happy to report. Thanks.