Radar Cross Section too big

[Kumabit]

I found that it seems like the radar cross section of the JF17 is too big. I can always find the JF17 first before I can find the SU27 or F16 or any other planes at the same distance and the same altitude.

 

Please take a look into this if you have time, thanks.

[shaHeen-1]

No... Pls... Gib hornets a chance to win. #BlueLivesMatter

[L0op8ack]

RCS is 3 m^2

[Kumabit]

RCS is 3 m^2

 

I know the team is implementing the real value for the RCS, but could you consider to adjust the value to a relative value among all other aircraft? The RCS is all about detectability and now it is unrealistic that the JF17 is easier to be detected than other larger aircraft such as the F-15 and the SU-27. Maybe the value of the RCS on other aircraft is not so realistic, therefore making the JF17 easier to be detected.

[Max1mus]

3 m^2 is tiny compared to all other DCS World modules.

 

The F-16 and Mirage have 4. The F-15 has 5. The F-14 has 6.

 

From my testing the RCS value also directly affects chaff rejection of missiles, so a too small value is not just a small influence on the detection range but can increase survivability quite a bit.

 

Same with the infrared signature. The IR_emission_coeff_ab is 2.0. Thats the engine in afterburner. In the F-16 its 3.0. Is that intended? The coefficient for outside burners is exactly the same as F-16 (0.6), so that makes me wonder.

 

Should the JF-17 be superior to the F-16 and more stealthy in those regards?

[Kumabit]

In the F-16 its 3.0. Is that intended? The coefficient for outside burners is exactly the same as F-16 (0.6), so that makes me wonder.

 

Should the JF-17 be superior to the F-16 and more stealthy in those regards?

 

I am not saying it should be more stealthy, at least they should be the same. Idk, if the value is the same, why the JF17 can be detected much easier than other aircrafts?

 

If you fly both sides, you will notice this after several flights.

Edited May 3, 2020 by Kumabit

[AeriaGloria]

I’m sure the DSI gives a modest benefit for RCS

 

I have also wondered if one reason all wing and tail surfaces are 42 degrees sweep is to align for small signature reduction

 

For IR coefficient what about similar size engines like Mirage 2000? Maybe the size of the AB flame is it

Edited May 3, 2020 by AeriaGloria

[L0op8ack]

I know the team is implementing the real value for the RCS, but could you consider to adjust the value to a relative value among all other aircraft? The RCS is all about detectability and now it is unrealistic that the JF17 is easier to be detected than other larger aircraft such as the F-15 and the SU-27. Maybe the value of the RCS on other aircraft is not so realistic, therefore making the JF17 easier to be detected.

 

 

Please upload a simple trk for demo.

 

 

RCS is very simple in lua config, just a number.

The effect is heavily rely on radar implement of opponent planes.

[ShadowFrost]

I found that it seems like the radar cross section of the JF17 is too big. I can always find the JF17 first before I can find the SU27 or F16 or any other planes at the same distance and the same altitude.

 

Please take a look into this if you have time, thanks.

 

What aircraft are you flying when you try and detect the JF-17 vs other aircraft?

 

I ran a test in perfect conditions and the JF-17 picked up other aircraft in an order contrary to what you are suggesting. Though disclaimer being, these are AI flown for testing purposes. If there is something going on with player flown aircraft, it will not be shown through my testing.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ietAOAHq5TgAr8FyYzZNoYArioiKJV6Fdd2IqdBGni8/edit?usp=sharing

 

My Results

[GumidekCZ]

Why JF-17 has three quarters of F-16 RCS? Any evidence for it? They are same size. If have better covered engine intake blades, but there it end. F16 has better designed clean engine outlet, lower RCS from from any angle than from front - JF has circular shape of fuselage, not very good if compare with sleaky Viper. From my point of view, they need to have same RCS value.

[[PTF]Ali]

Why JF-17 has three quarters of F-16 RCS? Any evidence for it? They are same size. If have better covered engine intake blades, but there it end. F16 has better designed clean engine outlet, lower RCS from from any angle than from front - JF has circular shape of fuselage, not very good if compare with sleaky Viper. From my point of view, they need to have same RCS value.

 

hmm jf-17 is 1 foot smaller than f16 meanwhile it has diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) design same as F35 inlet, Some composite material on jf-17 whether it is block 1 or block 2 no one knows but Block 2 JF-17s incorporate greater use of composite materials plus design of jf-17 helps enough stealth and ultimately better RCS performance than f16 although RCS is not completely simulated in DCS itself unfortunately.

Edited August 25, 2020 by AliPG

[AeriaGloria]

I don’t know where this idea the same size as F-16 came from. Despite being 1 foot smaller in wingspan and length, it’s basically 20% smaller in all other specifications.

 

And Ali it’s not hard to find the amount of composite on JF-17 block 1, just look at any block 1 unpainted, I believe the green is usually composite and the yellow is primer on aluminum.

[GumidekCZ]

hmm jf-17 is 1 foot smaller than f16 meanwhile it has diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) design same as F35 inlet, Some composite material on jf-17 whether it is block 1 or block 2 no one knows but Block 2 JF-17s incorporate greater use of composite materials plus design of jf-17 helps enough stealth and ultimately better RCS performance than f16 although RCS is not completely simulated in DCS itself unfortunately.

 

Edited because missing

caused some misunderstanding who is an author of that idea.

1 foot smaller

= absolut irelevant to RCS

 

diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI)

= will help reduce RCS only from frontal direction edit:like 20° azimuth (as I already written)

 

JF-17 greater use of composite

? Weak up from your dream boy! Some minor panels may be made from composite + part of vertical stabilizer and nose cone from fiberglass. All other parts mostly from Alu and Steel. Watch the pictures from links: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4102558&postcount=704 https://defence-blog.com/news/assembly-line-of-pakistani-jf-17-block2-fighters.html

 

ultimately better RCS performance than f16

:lol: :doh: edit: Same as SD-10 are ultimately better missiles than any other in DCS :mad:

 

 

Almost every member of any nation which build or participated on production of a fighter jet, will claim his fighter is the best. If you can't step aside and look on design objectively, than do not try to at all.

Edited August 26, 2020 by GumidekCZ

[ShadowFrost]

• 1 foot smaller = absolut irelevant to RCS
  
• diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) = will help reduce RCS only from frontal direction (as I already written)
  
• JF-17 greater use of composite? Weak up from your dream boy! Some minor panels may be made from composite + part of vertical stabilizer and nose cone from fiberglass. All other parts mostly from Alu and Steel. Watch the pictures from links: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4102558&postcount=704 https://defence-blog.com/news/assembly-line-of-pakistani-jf-17-block2-fighters.html
  
• ultimately better RCS performance than f16 :lol: :doh: edit: Same as SD-10 are ultimately better missiles than any other in DCS :mad:
  

Almost every member of any nation which build or participated on production of a fighter jet, will claim his fighter is the best. If you can't step aside and look on design objectively, than do not try to at all.

 

I mean.... Your making quite the argument about RCS when its massively unrealistic in its current implementation within DCS anyways. One number is all you have for RCS currently. I think the better argument would be for a realistic implementation of RCS and then go on to specifics.

And besides that, your kind of hijacking a bug forum.... A debate would do better in the general section.

[[PTF]Ali]

And besides that, your kind of hijacking a bug forum.... A debate would do better in the general section.

 

agreed,

[[PTF]Ali]

• 1 foot smaller = absolut irelevant to RCS
  
• diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) = will help reduce RCS only from frontal direction (as I already written)
  
• JF-17 greater use of composite? Weak up from your dream boy! Some minor panels may be made from composite + part of vertical stabilizer and nose cone from fiberglass. All other parts mostly from Alu and Steel. Watch the pictures from links: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4102558&postcount=704 https://defence-blog.com/news/assembly-line-of-pakistani-jf-17-block2-fighters.html
  
• ultimately better RCS performance than f16 :lol: :doh: edit: Same as SD-10 are ultimately better missiles than any other in DCS :mad:
  

Almost every member of any nation which build or participated on production of a fighter jet, will claim his fighter is the best. If you can't step aside and look on design objectively, than do not try to at all.

 

Believe me or not, You are one of the guys who come from Growling Sidewinder, Hit by SD-10 and hijack others threads meanwhile sometime you have to accept the reality, I get info from Wikipedia only may be thats why it can be wrong but i absolute believe this jet is better than f16 was made to outperform f16. I own f16 i fly it, I like Jf-17 than f16 and anytime bring her in SATAL to perform, No question this jet is modern and beast in situational awareness, smoother ride, easy to fly, never leave your tail and worth mastery.

Edited August 25, 2020 by AliPG

[AeriaGloria]

• 1 foot smaller = absolut irelevant to RCS
  
• diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) = will help reduce RCS only from frontal direction (as I already written)
  
• JF-17 greater use of composite? Weak up from your dream boy! Some minor panels may be made from composite + part of vertical stabilizer and nose cone from fiberglass. All other parts mostly from Alu and Steel. Watch the pictures from links: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4102558&postcount=704 https://defence-blog.com/news/assembly-line-of-pakistani-jf-17-block2-fighters.html
  
• ultimately better RCS performance than f16 :lol: :doh: edit: Same as SD-10 are ultimately better missiles than any other in DCS :mad:
  

Almost every member of any nation which build or participated on production of a fighter jet, will claim his fighter is the best. If you can't step aside and look on design objectively, than do not try to at all.

 

If you want RCS changed, best is to ask ED as it seems to be them that wanted it at 3m squared. Deka made it clear it wasn’t their decision in this thread.

 

Cut “only one foot” in however way you want, but another way of saying its also 9 inches longer then a MiG-21. And while there isn’t a lot of composite, I think we can agree there is probably zero external composites on 21.

 

And as for the DSI, the number you see in LUA is actually front aspect, and there are modifiers to determine other aspects, but the 3m listed is for the front, ie before any modifiers such as aspect and PRF are added. So if DSI is the cause for a lot of this it should make big difference on the LUA number which is only front aspect.

 

As for SD-10, I’m a little surprised how often this still comes up after all the AMRAAM upgrades, I understand how people might still have that impression, but it’s certainly not better then the AMRAAM currently. Specifically how much range performance it has more then in real life I think is always up for debate, as is any missile in DCS, but right now it is absolutely inferior to the C AMRAAM in useful range, and even the B AMRAAM has better countermeasure performance then the SD-10. So I understand your point, but the C AMRAAM has basically every advantage. And this is all me pretending the Phoenix doesn’t exist

Same as SD-10 are ultimately better missiles than any other in DCS :mad:

Edited August 25, 2020 by AeriaGloria

[uboats]

• 1 foot smaller = absolut irelevant to RCS
  
• diverterless supersonic inlet (DSI) = will help reduce RCS only from frontal direction (as I already written)
  
• JF-17 greater use of composite? Weak up from your dream boy! Some minor panels may be made from composite + part of vertical stabilizer and nose cone from fiberglass. All other parts mostly from Alu and Steel. Watch the pictures from links: https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=4102558&postcount=704 https://defence-blog.com/news/assembly-line-of-pakistani-jf-17-block2-fighters.html
  
• ultimately better RCS performance than f16 :lol: :doh: edit: Same as SD-10 are ultimately better missiles than any other in DCS :mad:
  

Almost every member of any nation which build or participated on production of a fighter jet, will claim his fighter is the best. If you can't step aside and look on design objectively, than do not try to at all.

 

1. ED just simulates front cross section for RCS

2. RCS is determined by ED

3. 3m^2 vs 4m^2 is ultimately better RCS perf?

4. yup, sd-10 is better modeled than old 10nm aim-120

But ultimately?? At least sd-10 cannot turn 180 to track target ;)

I don't know whether you have really played DCS during the past few months or you just repeat biased comments?

5. in your mind, China asset must be weaker than western production ?

Edited August 26, 2020 by uboats

[GumidekCZ]

Im sorry to hijack this topic and noticing SD-10 missile here, was a big mistake.

Also I edited my original post and added

to make clear who said what.

 

 

For your info, if you just compare front view and cross section:

 

From sides, its clear, that Viper have more angled shape with comparison with thick and tall JF-17 cigar. Unfortunately I didnt found any JF-17 cross section drawing.

 

Again, I insist that JF17 must be RCS 4.0 defined in Lua script same as F-16, not 3.0

[Jonne]

... I think we can agree there is probably zero external composites on 21.

 

That is wrong. The majority of the surface you see from the front aspect is composite on the MiG-21.

[GumidekCZ]

That is wrong. The majority of the surface you see from the front aspect is composite on the MiG-21.

Show us real picture supporting your statement.

 

Behind WOODEN nosecone there is always radar antenna and behind it aluminium plate again, both perfect for reflecting radar engergy back to enemey radar. I have picture from MiG-21 service, and except of fibergalss antenna covers all around the plane, there is NON of compisite material.

 

Now back to JF-17 RCS topic.

[AeriaGloria]

Okay okay ignoring the fiberglass nose cone, like radar should:)

 

 

As for the F-16 and it’s blended angles, it’s only blended on one side:)

 

I honestly don’t think theorizing the RCS based on things like sharp angles will get us much anywhere towards a good idea of a better RCS LUA value, have you seen values of all the planes in DCS? They are pretty simplistic and reductionist, probably just a guess to make it the way someone might expect, or from anecdotes, here

 

Should note, I believe Mirage IR values were changed after this picture was made

 

Interesting Viggen has same RCS, the Viggen is much closer to F-16 in size/class

Edited August 26, 2020 by AeriaGloria

[MAKhan]

Im sorry to hijack this topic and noticing SD-10 missile here, was a big mistake.

Also I edited my original post and added

to make clear who said what.

 

 

For your info, if you just compare front view and cross section:

[ATTACH]245809[/ATTACH]

 

From sides, its clear, that Viper have more angled shape with comparison with thick and tall JF-17 cigar. Unfortunately I didnt found any JF-17 cross section drawing.

 

Again, I insist that JF17 must be RCS 4.0 defined in Lua script same as F-16, not 3.0

 

You wont find open source to confirm figures for RCS of JF-17, at least not yet, most would be guesstimates. As per my information (which i cannot substantiate with a source) the RCS of JF-17's first prototype was 2.6m2 (the one with splitter plate intakes), which was further reduced in the final product, with reduction of 30% rcs just by the DSI intake. You cannot just look at a fighter and calculate its RCS. F-16A has RCS of 5m2, F-16C has lower RCS than that while both have essentially the same shape! F/A-18 E/F has even lower RCS than f-16C, even though it is aerodynamically dirtier than than an F-16C. You see where this is going? About composite material, i have not seen any accredited source mentioning it having RCS reduction ability, it is essentially used for weight reduction and strength. RAM coating on the other hand is used for RCS reduction.

 

PAF which flies F-16 C/D, F-16 A/B, Mirage 3/5, F-7P/PG(mig-21) maintain that JF-17 has lower RCS than all of the above and is the hardest to spot on the radar. DEKA will have to use their sources to get a figure and i dont think they would be provided documentary evidence to share, as it is confidential, at least in PAF's and Chinese case.

Edited August 26, 2020 by MAKhan

[[PTF]Ali]

Im sorry to hijack this topic and noticing SD-10 missile here, was a big mistake.

Also I edited my original post and added

 

You wont find open source to confirm figures for RCS of JF-17, at least not yet, most would be guesstimates. As per my information (which i cannot substantiate with a source) the RCS of JF-17's first prototype was 2.6m2 (the one with splitter plate intakes), which was further reduced in the final product, with reduction of 30% rcs just by the DSI intake. You cannot just look at a fighter and calculate its RCS. F-16A has RCS of 5m2, F-16C has lower RCS than that while both have essentially the same shape! F/A-18 E/F has even lower RCS than f-16C, even though it is aerodynamically dirtier than than an F-16C. You see where this is going? About composite material, i have not seen any accredited source mentioning it having RCS reduction ability, it is essentially used for weight reduction and strength. RAM coating on the other hand is used for RCS reduction.

 

PAF which flies F-16 C/D, F-16 A/B, Mirage 3/5, F-7P/PG(mig-21) maintain that JF-17 has lower RCS than all of the above and is the hardest to spot on the radar. DEKA will have to use their sources to get a figure and i dont think they would be provided documentary evidence to share, as it is confidential, at least in PAF's and Chinese case.

 

Can you provide source or any link, I want to study as well.

Edited August 26, 2020 by AliPG

[[PTF]Ali]

Also f16 is so OLD, 1978 has no comparison with modern JF-17 2007, Waste of time with these thread hijackers.