Dragon1-1 Posted January 27 Posted January 27 5 hours ago, upyr1 said: I figured there would be software available to calculate RCS the real issue though is how much computer power it would take to add the algorithms to DCS. You don't have to add algorithms to DCS. After all, the aircraft models don't change much mid mission, and when they do, they do so in a few, predictable ways. Nobody cares how exactly RCS changes during gear transition, you can calculate RCS with gear up and gear down, then LERP between the values. Hence, the algorithm would be used to precalculate RCS tables for each aircraft (and maybe even for ground units). 1
TotenDead Posted February 25 Posted February 25 I wonder at what distance will one F-35 see another F-35
draconus Posted February 27 Posted February 27 On 1/26/2025 at 12:44 PM, Dragon1-1 said: I'd imagine that Viper is not the only jet that would give interceptors trouble in that area, but merely the most famous. I wonder how the F-104 will look with proper RCS modeling, for instance. It's also diminutive, very pointy, has a small radome, S-ducts (albeit shallower ones than on the Viper) and a limited missile load. I haven't heard too many stories about fighting this one, but I imagine that once properly modeled, it'll appear on the radar quite late, as well. The Viggen might, as well, at least when not loaded for bear. Yet in DCS the F-15, F-18 and MiG-29 has RCS of 5m2, F-16 (all versions) - 4m2 and Viggen is 3, same as F-5, MiG-21 or JF-17. 1 Win10 i7-10700KF 32GB RTX4070S Quest 3 T16000M VPC CDT-VMAX TFRP FC3 F-14A/B F-15E CA SC NTTR PG Syria
Dragon1-1 Posted February 27 Posted February 27 Because in DCS, the values are largely arbitrary and don't appear to be based on anything in particular. In any case, radar detection range seldom causes a problem in DCS, in that it seems to universally exceed effective weapon range. 2
Pavlin_33 Posted February 28 Posted February 28 On 2/27/2025 at 3:33 PM, Dragon1-1 said: Because in DCS, the values are largely arbitrary and don't appear to be based on anything in particular. In any case, radar detection range seldom causes a problem in DCS, in that it seems to universally exceed effective weapon range. MiG-21's RCS could be coming from the RL manuals, where it is in deed labeled as having 3sqm total surface. i5-4690K CPU 3.50Ghz @ 4.10GHz; 32GB DDR3 1600MHz; GeForce GTX 1660 Super; LG IPS225@1920x1080; Samsung SSD 860 EVO 1TB; Windows 10 Pro
Dragon1-1 Posted March 1 Posted March 1 It could be, there's no real standard here. Most manuals don't include RCS. MiG-21 is rather tiny, and much of the turbine disk is obscured by the cone (although it's radar-transparent because the MiG's own radar is in there, so it doesn't help as much as you'd think), so it could be on the low end.
NytHawk Posted March 3 Posted March 3 6 hours ago, Df555 said: Russian pilots regularly encounter F-35s. Maybe just ask them? I know you're joking, but I am not aware of any images out there showing Russian jets intercepting (or being intercepted by) F35s without luneburg lenses mounted. 2
Dragon1-1 Posted March 3 Posted March 3 They wouldn't send a jet without them, precisely because they wouldn't want them to get first hand experience on tracking a stealth jet, plus the point of there being an interceptor in peacetime is for it to be seen. 2
EchoOneOne Posted March 3 Posted March 3 (edited) 20 hours ago, Df555 said: Russian pilots regularly encounter F-35s. Maybe just ask them? Luneberg's lens Edited March 3 by EchoOneOne "Once a dragon always a dragon"
Df555 Posted March 3 Posted March 3 6 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said: They wouldn't send a jet without them, precisely because they wouldn't want them to get first hand experience on tracking a stealth jet, plus the point of there being an interceptor in peacetime is for it to be seen. 1 hour ago, EchoOneOne said: Luneberg's lens 15 hours ago, NytHawk said: I know you're joking, but I am not aware of any images out there showing Russian jets intercepting (or being intercepted by) F35s without luneburg lenses mounted. Well, seriously, the approximate values of the RCS should be known. I might upset someone, but intelligence and analytics work quite well these days.
Dragon1-1 Posted March 3 Posted March 3 If you have a 3D model, you can use open source RCS calculation software to determine that. As it happens, we know the physical shape of the F-35, so it should be quite possible to get a good estimate. There are some non-obvious factors (RAM effectiveness, radome), but that can be estimated, too. 1
NytHawk Posted March 3 Posted March 3 6 hours ago, Df555 said: Well, seriously, the approximate values of the RCS should be known. I might upset someone, but intelligence and analytics work quite well these days. It's easy for the public to find the RCS of a given aircraft shape, the issue is that we don't know that much about the effectiveness of the RAM on the F35. We also need to make assumptions on the thickness of the RAM, knowing that it varies a LOT on the F35.
Dragon1-1 Posted March 4 Posted March 4 We do know that RAM, as a rule, doesn't absorb very much. F-35 gets its stealthyness from geometry, with RAM providing a bonus. While we may not know exact specs, it should be possible to estimate from physics and public research papers on how RAM works.
EchoOneOne Posted March 4 Posted March 4 https://wipl-d.com/applications/rcs-scattering/ "Once a dragon always a dragon"
Df555 Posted March 4 Posted March 4 13 hours ago, Dragon1-1 said: We do know that RAM, as a rule, doesn't absorb very much. F-35 gets its stealthyness from geometry, with RAM providing a bonus. While we may not know exact specs, it should be possible to estimate from physics and public research papers on how RAM works. Oh, by the way, if RAM were that effective, every plane would have it. But since it's not very effective, it doesn't make sense, since a regular plane would be visible anyway.
Dragon1-1 Posted March 4 Posted March 4 Regular 4th++ gen ones are getting RAM coating as an upgrade. It doesn't help much, but it's better than nothing, and on a small fighter it does make a difference. Obviously coating a B-52 with it won't help. Fun fact: Mythbusters managed to get ahold of some radar-absorbing paint and coat a car with it. It didn't help them evade a police radar gun, but the point is, at least some materials of that sort are available on civilian market. This is not some exotic tech, I suspect the advances in the F-35 version of the material are more about not making it weigh the plane down than a major improvement in radar wave absorption, due to physics involved (though it's probably more capable in that area than the stuff Mythbusters used).
Recommended Posts