Radar Cross Section too big

[GumidekCZ]

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.

This should be our evidence and proof to jet plane lowest RCS value of 3.0 (shared with Viggen and MiG-21)??? Did PAF measure detection with all these airframes clean without loadout, or a similar one? We all know that loadout makes huge impact.

 

M2000C now have RCS 5.0 in DCS. As a Mirage DCS pilot, I would be disappointed when compared with JF17. Just because somebody (PAF pilot may be) said some think, without trying to find a proof or evidence in even very simplistic measurement.

 

I heard, that ED devs are discussing some of DEKA given performances to adjust its level to be at least believable. Hope ED will do good job in it.

[[PTF]Ali]

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.

 

First of all don't compare JF-17 with any jet cause it is not F-16 or Mig21 or m2000c at all. And don't compare it in this thread this is about jf-17 RCS discussion not comparison. If you have question ask ED

Edited August 26, 2020 by AliPG

[GumidekCZ]

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

OMG :megalol::lol: I just peed myself.

They took MiG-21 design and added some of F-16 design, blended together with redesigned engine intakes + nose and you call it "no comparison"?

This way I can say, that our Czech Aero L-159T2 Alca has no comparison on field of light attack and training jet planes, just because it was finished two years ago.

[[PTF]Ali]

OMG :megalol::lol: I just peed myself.

They took MiG-21 design and added some of F-16 design, blended together with redesigned engine intakes + nose and you call it "no comparison"?

This way I can say, that our Czech Aero L-159T2 Alca has no comparison on field of light attack and training jet planes, just because it was finished two years ago.

 

Oh is it stealth? What RCS it has? :)

[paco2002]

This should be our evidence and proof to jet plane lowest RCS value of 3.0 (shared with Viggen and MiG-21)??? Did PAF measure detection with all these airframes clean without loadout, or a similar one? We all know that loadout makes huge impact.

 

M2000C now have RCS 5.0 in DCS. As a Mirage DCS pilot, I would be disappointed when compared with JF17. Just because somebody (PAF pilot may be) said some think, without trying to find a proof or evidence in even very simplistic measurement.

 

I heard, that ED devs are discussing some of DEKA given performances to adjust its level to be at least believable. Hope ED will do good job in it.

Okay, So, you don't believe that the JF-17 has a 3m2 of RCS... Then, what number it should be in the game? Give us some info! If a 3rd party with SME is giving you numbers, and info about a plane, why you don't trust them?

[ShadowFrost]

1. ED just simulates front cross section for RCS

2. RCS is determined by ED

 

I feel like you guys are missing a very important statement....

 

And besides that, I can't really understand the RCS argument when there are more pressing factors not even considered like payloads, pylons, and angle of viewing. The entire RCS system needs to be redone and then a discussion about what RCS is more accurate can take place. Because currently its not a huge factor considering payload isn't accounted to begin with.

 

Your are arguing over quite a small difference in end result with the current system. The system itself being overhauled will make for bigger changes in detection than current adjustments. As currently, with the JF-17's radar, the RCS change from 3 to 4 means effectively 3.5 nautical miles of detection.

Edited August 26, 2020 by ShadowFrost
Grammar and additions

[AeriaGloria]

I feel like you guys are missing a very important statement....

 

And besides that, I can't really understand the RCS argument when there are more pressing factors not even considered like payloads, pylons, and angle of viewing. The entire RCS system needs to be redone and then a discussion about what RCS is more accurate can take place. Because currently its not a huge factor considering payload isn't accounted to begin with.

 

Your are arguing over quite a small difference in end result with the current system. The system itself being overhauled will make for bigger changes in detection than current adjustments. As currently, with the JF-17's radar, the RCS change from 3 to 4 means effectively 3.5 nautical miles of detection.

 

Thanks for bringing some sanity. How about we look at the proportions? Was this tested at a specific range? If we can find the range of the host radar in this test, we can figure out what proportion those 3.5nm affect it and would affect any radar

 

Ali, You’re really not helping with accusations of bias, even if I agree with some of your statements

 

Gumidek, as the number of 3m was ED decision, they already looked at it. If you talk to them about it, they might be able to change it, but Deka would probably only be able to recommend.

But as for your number of 4 because it’s the same as F-16 I’m still perplexed, if we ignore size of the airframe, looks the exposed fan area. The F-16 has quite a bit of fan visible straight from the front, on the JF-17 there is two small slices about 30 degrees off nose where you can see fan, but that’s it. And the F-16, has a larger fan on top of that, with 6 inches longer in diameter, so I would think it would be no competition that the JF-17 is atleast likely to have a smaller signature, however much that difference is.

 

And as for it being designed like F-16, I think this is really overblown. Sure it’s throttle is very F-16, and some other UI and switchology borrows from F-16, but the plane itself is entirely evolved from MiG-21 and F-7. It was Grumman in 1987 that added strakes and clipped delta wing to an entirely F-7 design scaling it up only to fit a bigger engine, and this design didn’t change much until DSI and larger strakes were added after first flight. It’s actually really interesting you find cockpit photos of J-7 variants throughout the years, late J-7 cockpits are almost indistinguishable from JF-17. While PAF is public about saying they wanted it to have UI to be like F-16 to reduce training, I really can’t think of anything else that is F-16 derived outside of that cockpit. Even in the roles, it is not meant to replace F-16, and in PAF often plays second fiddle to it, because it is designed to replace A-5, F-7, and Mirage III. You could say it’s their version of a high low mix. I think of the monocoque structure was blended wing and body, or had a hydrazine power unit;), then yes that would be pretty obvious F-16 DNA, but it’s not blended at all and it uses a big battery instead

 

I think you will go much farther thinking of it as a 21st century MiG-21, but that’s just my personal thought after flying it in DCS for so long and trying to learn about it as much as I can

Edited August 26, 2020 by AeriaGloria

[ShadowFrost]

Originally the tests were done to see if there were any truth to the claim of the bug report, that the JF-17 was being detected earlier than larger aircraft. But the results proved everything to be working as expected given how they were set to in the game.

 

So the test was started at ~100 nautical miles out at 20K feet head-on 430 kts both aircraft. Using the JF-17's radar in RWS mode, 30 degree scan, co-alt looking forward straight and level to determine when the radar would detect an aircraft in front of it. Speed/starting distance/altitude were kept the same so while there may be some variation in maximum possible detection due to the target coming into range between sweeps (IE missed for a period of seconds therefore in inaccurate true range) the % error from true detection would be consistent throughout the test. Though being on a 30 degree sweep, the % error off shouldn't be very high to begin with.

 

It was designed to be a relative test between detection time of JF-17 vs other aircraft. If I wanted an accurate best possible range detected I would have done several more of each aircraft to account for error.

 

This was my document

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

and below a picture of the quick disclaimers I had originally written.

Edited August 27, 2020 by ShadowFrost

[AeriaGloria]

Originally the tests were done to see if there were any truth to the claim of the bug report, that the JF-17 was being detected earlier than larger aircraft. But the results proved everything to be working as expected given how they were set to in the game.

 

So the test was started at ~100 nautical miles out at 20K feet head-on 430 kts both aircraft. Using the JF-17's radar in RWS mode, 30 degree scan, co-alt looking forward straight and level to determine when the radar would detect an aircraft in front of it. Speed/starting distance/altitude were kept the same so while there may be some variation in maximum possible detection due to the target coming into range between sweeps (IE missed for a period of seconds therefore in inaccurate true range) the % error from true detection would be consistent throughout the test. Though being on a 30 degree sweep, the % error off shouldn't be very high to begin with.

 

It was designed to be a relative test between detection time of JF-17 vs other aircraft. If I wanted an accurate best possible range detected I would have done several more of each aircraft to account for error.

 

This was my document

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

and below a picture of the quick disclaimers I had originally written.

 

Got ya! Thanks for the test, those are pretty small differences interesting enough

[Majik]

And as for it being designed like F-16, I think this is really overblown. Sure it’s throttle is very F-16, and some other UI and switchology borrows from F-16n

 

 

This. In fact, in many ways, the UI, operations and workflows feel far closer to an F/A-18 than F-16. It's all marketing, any real comparison to the F-16 is kind of moot.

[TEOMOOSE]

A few years has passed by...I wonder what are the current RCS measurements in comparison of all the popular modules?

[AeriaGloria]

10 hours ago, TEOMOOSE said:

A few years has passed by...I wonder what are the current RCS measurements in comparison of all the popular modules?

 

[TEOMOOSE]

21 minutes ago, AeriaGloria said:

 

wait..The F15 is only 5m2 ? - ITs a giant aircraft so as the F-14, they are both close to 25m2.

[Dr_Pavelheer]

Doesn't the fact that RCS is just a static value give you a pause? Current modelling doesn't even take stores into account, let alone aspect or band radar is operating in.

And it's not that big of a deal either, there are so many things I would rather ED implemented or reworked before they start working on minor stuff like more complex RCS simulation

[TEOMOOSE]

if its a simple value then a simple change can make a huge difference. Not to mention that RCS is just as important as anything else in Dcs world.  Im aware that making a "accurate" rcs is a very complex task, but the these basic "simple" figures are so low that is just blows my mind.

[AeriaGloria]

56 minutes ago, Dr_Pavelheer said:

Doesn't the fact that RCS is just a static value give you a pause? Current modelling doesn't even take stores into account, let alone aspect or band radar is operating in.

And it's not that big of a deal either, there are so many things I would rather ED implemented or reworked before they start working on minor stuff like more complex RCS simulation

 

1 minute ago, TEOMOOSE said:

if its a simple value then a simple change can make a huge difference. Not to mention that RCS is just as important as anything else in Dcs world.  Im aware that making a "accurate" rcs is a very complex task, but the these basic "simple" figures are so low that is just blows my mind.

There is a modifier to make it so that from front aspect the detection range is smaller. But depends. As with JF-17 and Mirage 2000 third parties have coded their own implementation with more sophisticated and variable RCS models

[TEOMOOSE]

Rigth! The  modifier, the many different factors such as : 

• the material of aircraft

• the size of aircraft

• incident angle & reflect we angle of aircraft

• shape of the aircraft

• polarization

The base values needs to be higher and than when other factors being implemented to that, is should get worse. 

[TEOMOOSE]

For example:

the Su-27:                       - RCS is ~ 15m2;
Shenyang J-11:              - RCS is 15m2;
MiG-29:                          - RCS is 5m2;
JF-17 Thunder:              - RCS is 3m2;
 F/A-18C:                       - RCS of 2m2
F-16 Block 50:               - RCS is 1.2m2;
F-15 Eagle/F-15 E:         - RCS is25m2;
F-14:                               - RCS is 25m2;
Mirage 2000:                 - RCS is 1 - 2.5m2;

A B52 is 100m2.
The B-1 bomber is 10m2
The B-2 bomber has an RCS of 0.0001m2

[Napillo]

18 hours ago, TEOMOOSE said:

For example:

citation needed.

[TEOMOOSE]

On 2/16/2023 at 2:33 PM, Napillo said:

citation needed.

you dont get one hahah

I sent docs to ED.

[Dragon1-1]

Don't forget that for the F-14, it'd change quite a bit with wing sweep, as well. Straight wings reflect more towards the radar and are spread wider, wings swept back would be nearly invisible. Yet another complexity that is not currently being modeled.