RCS Signatures (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

DWReese -> RCS Signatures (9/30/2017 2:10:10 PM)

A few days ago, someone brought up the topic of Stealth. I have never paid any attention to any of the ratings established by CMANO, and have always taken them as being an absolute. I still do. I have no knowledge of anything pertaining to this, and CMANO's estimates are way better than anything that I could ever come up with, so the story ends there.

That being said, I started looking at the various RCS ratings for some of the Stealthy planes and, if I read things correctly (and I don't know if I am), a NEGATIVE number in the two RADAR sections (A-D and E-M) indicates a stealthier plane. I concluded this because all of the "known" stealthy A/C have NEGATIVE NUMBERS, so it must be true. Again, I have no issue with any of the numbers, so I may be off base.

Here is my question......All of the similar planes within a specific model always seem to have the same RCS Signature. That would make sense. The F-16 CM Blk 50 has a RCS (A-D) at 3.4, and a RCS of 2.1 in the E-M category. But, there is a special version of this plane (perhaps it's a hypothetical unit) that has a much lower RCS. This unit (DB #4612) is also a a F-16 CM Blk 50, but has something written to the side that indicates "have Glass RCS." The RCS for this particular plane is at -18.8 and -28.7, respectively. Obviously, this is almost at "stealthy" as the F-22, the F-35, and the B-2. It is even more stealthy than China's J-20.......Does this plane actually exist? Is this something that will be re-fitted for all of the F-16 CM Blk 50 planes? Or, is this just something that is fantasy? It is listed as in service in 2017 in the DB, with no indication of it being hypothetical, so I assume that it is real. If so, this is a huge change.

So, does anyone have any knowledge about this plane's actual existence?

Thanks in advance.

Doug



Sardaukar -> RE: RCS Signatures (9/30/2017 2:17:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: DWReese

A few days ago, someone brought up the topic of Stealth. I have never paid any attention to any of the ratings established by CMANO, and have always taken them as being an absolute. I still do. I have no knowledge of anything pertaining to this, and CMANO's estimates are way better than anything that I could ever come up with, so the story ends there.

That being said, I started looking at the various RCS ratings for some of the Stealthy planes and, if I read things correctly (and I don't know if I am), a NEGATIVE number in the two RADAR sections (A-D and E-M) indicates a stealthier plane. I concluded this because all of the "known" stealthy A/C have NEGATIVE NUMBERS, so it must be true. Again, I have no issue with any of the numbers, so I may be off base.

Here is my question......All of the similar planes within a specific model always seem to have the same RCS Signature. That would make sense. The F-16 CM Blk 50 has a RCS (A-D) at 3.4, and a RCS of 2.1 in the E-M category. But, there is a special version of this plane (perhaps it's a hypothetical unit) that has a much lower RCS. This unit (DB #4612) is also a a F-16 CM Blk 50, but has something written to the side that indicates "have Glass RCS." The RCS for this particular plane is at -18.8 and -28.7, respectively. Obviously, this is almost at "stealthy" as the F-22, the F-35, and the B-2. It is even more stealthy than China's J-20.......Does this plane actually exist? Is this something that will be re-fitted for all of the F-16 CM Blk 50 planes? Or, is this just something that is fantasy? It is listed as in service in 2017 in the DB, with no indication of it being hypothetical, so I assume that it is real. If so, this is a huge change.

So, does anyone have any knowledge about this plane's actual existence?

Thanks in advance.

Doug



It is this:

https://theaviationist.com/2012/08/30/have-glass/

All the U.S. “Wild Weasel” F-16s are being given a new paint job similar to the one of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

It is called “Have Glass 5th generation” as it represents the evolution of the standard Have Glass program that saw all the F-16s receiving a two-tone grey color scheme made with a special radar-absorbing paint capable to reduce the aircraft Radar Cross Section: in fact, “Vipers” are covered with RAM (Radar Absorbent Material) made of microscopic metal grains that can degrade the radar signature of the aircraft.

For the moment, the JSF-like paint job will be applied to the F-16CM (formerly CJ) Block 50 Fighting Falcon aircraft that can carry a variety of air-to-air and air-to-surface ordnance, including HARM (High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles) and precision-guided munitions.

Their role is to enter the enemy territory ahead of the strike package to take care of the enemy air defenses: radars and fixed and mobile SAM (Surface to Air Missiles) batteries.

Therefore, the units that will fly with the F-16CMs in the new color scheme will be those tasked with SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses) missions: the 52nd Fighter Wing at Spangdahlem (Germany), the 35th FW at Misawa (Japan), the 20th FW at Shaw Air Force Base, the 169th FW at McEntire Joint National Guard Base (SC), and 148th FW at Duluth International Airport, (MN).

Whilst two aircraft in the U.S. flew the Have Glass 4 paint job for test purposes (98-0004 and 98-0005 flying with the 85th Test and Evaluation Squadron from Eglin AFB) the first aircraft spotted in the new livery is a Minnesota ANG F-16CM, 91-0391, that is currently deployed at Kandahar, Afghanistan.

The F-35 will replace the F-16CM in the SEAD role in the future.



mikmykWS -> RE: RCS Signatures (9/30/2017 3:07:57 PM)

This mod was requested by Dimitris some time ago and I added it.

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=4245388

Here's the link to the info he provided

http://wiki.scramble.nl/index.php/Lockheed_Martin_F-16_Fighting_Falcon#Have_Glass

Pictures of have glass F-16's

https://theaviationist.com/tag/have-glass-v/

If you think there is something wrong please do provide a file so the guys can take a look.

Thanks!

Mike




DWReese -> RE: RCS Signatures (9/30/2017 3:48:19 PM)

Thanks for the very detailed explanation. That was perfect.

Do you know if the "paint job" is an expensive make-over? If not, it seems like something that they would want to consider. It also seems like a secret formula that should be well protected.

Doug



DWReese -> RE: RCS Signatures (9/30/2017 3:53:14 PM)

Oh, no, as I said, I wouldn't know the first thing about what ratings should be. I am perfectly happy with any ratings that CMANO uses. In fact, I treat your ratings as an absolute authority.

I was really just interested in the huge change in ratings from the regular Falcon to this one. That was the most drastic change that have ever seen. Sardaukar's explanation was exactly what I had desired.

Thanks, also, for the links to these particular changes. They provide an excellent explanation, as well.

Have a great day.

Doug



mikmykWS -> RE: RCS Signatures (9/30/2017 3:59:22 PM)

Great.[:)] Have fun with it!

Mike



Filitch -> RE: RCS Signatures (9/30/2017 4:19:23 PM)

It would be good if the authors of the database with the same care not only treated American aircraft. Modern MiG-29K, SMT, MiG-35 in the construction of which also uses radio-absorbing materials have an RCS as an aircraft of the 80s.



gosnold -> RE: RCS Signatures (9/30/2017 4:22:34 PM)

Agreed, -18.8dB/-28.7dB seems far too good for a paint job on a legacy platform. It is a DB issue, you should report it in the corresponding thread.



mikmykWS -> RE: RCS Signatures (9/30/2017 6:43:07 PM)

Also add what you think they should be.

Everybody knows that the devs don't have or use classified data so try their best to make a best guess. Nationality has nothing to do with it and anybody claiming that is wrong.

Mike



ghostdog -> RE: RCS Signatures (10/2/2017 4:52:50 PM)

Does the RCS modelling assume a 'clean' configuration? does it get modified when weapons are added? otherwise, to have an F-16 with the exact same RCS as an F-35 (according to the DB) brings up some some interesting questions about stealth. If external weapons changes it, then perhaps it makes sense. a 'clean' F-35 with internal weapons should be stealthier than an F-16 with external weapons and fuel tanks, despite wearing stealthy paint.




thewood1 -> RE: RCS Signatures (10/2/2017 5:42:52 PM)

I remembered a build's release notes that mentioned that external loadout effects RCS. And here it is...

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3596652&mpage=1&key=rcs%2Cloadout�

"When calculating an aircraft's radar cross-section (RCS), any external stores (weapons, sensor pods, fuel tanks) are now taken into account, increasing the total RCS. This is critical for stealth aircraft but also makes a difference for non-VLO assets, depending on the detecting sensor. "



Demetrious -> RE: RCS Signatures (10/2/2017 6:51:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: thewood1
"When calculating an aircraft's radar cross-section (RCS), any external stores (weapons, sensor pods, fuel tanks) are now taken into account, increasing the total RCS. This is critical for stealth aircraft but also makes a difference for non-VLO assets, depending on the detecting sensor. "


It's definitely worth noting how significant an impact external stores can make on an aircraft's RCS, especially in relation to the F-16CM. I know exactly why gosnold did a double take on that RCS value - if the aircraft was that stealthy, you'd expect to have heard rather more about it by now!

But once you factor in external stores, that impressively small signature starts degrading fast - and since the F-16 has no internal weapons bays, everything it carries will be external stores. It's a rare F-16 that doesn't sling drop-tanks, and then you add a few strike weapons... and then defensive missiles... it adds up really fast. It really highlights just how important and integral to the design the internal weapons bays are on the F-22 and F-35; engineering-wise making space for those inside the aircraft was probably a bigger headache than the fancy curvilinear LO shaping!

Given that, I'd expect the "clean" F-16CM to have a surprisingly low signature (not in the least because it's a small aircraft with a very narrow front profile to begin with,) because you'd need it to be low to get any real advantage out of it once the airframe's loaded for bear. If they couldn't push that "clean" RCS surprisingly low, there'd be precious little point in yet another expensive paint job, compared to the older RAM coating, I'd wager. So while it looks suspiciously impressive on paper, actual combat performance (in real life and in-game) will be markedly less magical.

I had no idea this new RAM coating even existed. It's kind of embarrassing how many new platforms and variants of platforms I've discovered exist simply becuase I stumbled across it in CMANO's ever-expanding database...



Dimitris -> RE: RCS Signatures (10/2/2017 9:16:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ghostdog
otherwise, to have an F-16 with the exact same RCS as an F-35 (according to the DB) brings up some some interesting questions about stealth.


Just curious: Which exact variants (#IDs) show this equality?

I just did a quick check on the DB3000 and even export F-35As have a lower frontal RCS than all F-16 variants, including the one with Have Glass II.



Dragon029 -> RE: RCS Signatures (10/3/2017 1:57:40 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dimitris

quote:

ORIGINAL: ghostdog
otherwise, to have an F-16 with the exact same RCS as an F-35 (according to the DB) brings up some some interesting questions about stealth.


Just curious: Which exact variants (#IDs) show this equality?

I just did a quick check on the DB3000 and even export F-35As have a lower frontal RCS than all F-16 variants, including the one with Have Glass II.


#4612 has RCS figures that are (especially considering the fourth power relationship to detection range) practically the same as the F-35 [also, all F-35s should have the same RCS aside from perhaps Israel's due to additional RF apertures being added]:

F-35 low band RCS figures (front, side, rear): 0.012, 0.02, 0.012
F-16CM Blk 50 Have Glass 2017 low band RCS: 0.013, 0.023, 0.013

F-35 high band RCS figures: 0.0012, 0.002, 0.0012
F-16 high band RCS figures: 0.0013, 0.0023, 0.0013

While RAM has improved significantly since this saying originated, it's previously been said that 90% of an aircraft's RCS reductions come from its shape.

The F-16 Have Glass has no special shaping compared to a regular F-16; that means it has unstealthy features such as an external canopy bow / seam (whereas the F-35's is inside the radar opaque canopy), an intake which with perpendicular edges, a metal pitot tube that sticks out in front of the radome, various UHF, etc antennas, an exposed gun muzzle, a vertical tail (which alone would give it a large side RCS), no shaping on the landing gear bay doors, etc, a regular F100 / F110 exhaust nozzle, no rear turbine blocker like on the F-22 and F-35, etc.

Overall the F-16 Have Glass should be more in the ballpark of the Super Hornet [which as an aside, is quoted by Boeing as being an order of magnitude smaller than the F/A-18C/D, which in turn has a clean RCS of <10m^2], which has radar blockers in its intakes, has improved shaping and also features RAM (just not the same grade as the F-35's or F-22's).



Dimitris -> RE: RCS Signatures (7/5/2018 1:07:57 PM)

Thanks. These changes have been incorporated on the next DB3000 release.



SeaQueen -> RE: RCS Signatures (7/5/2018 6:59:24 PM)

In the database, radar cross sections are measured in decibels relative to one square meter (dBsm). Since they're in decibels, it's on a logarithmic scale. A negative number just means that the RCS is less than one square meter. What you consider to be "stealth aircraft" is relative. Typically "stealth aircraft" means that it was specifically designed with radar cross section reduction in mind. By that standard, though, the B-1B is a "stealth aircraft" which I'm not sure most people would agree with.



ExNusquam -> RE: RCS Signatures (7/5/2018 8:20:57 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

What you consider to be "stealth aircraft" is relative. Typically "stealth aircraft" means that it was specifically designed from with radar cross section reduction in mind. By that standard, though, the B-1B is a "stealth aircraft" which I'm not sure most people would agree with.

A few years ago I got a tour of the Super Hornet production line - one of the Boeing reps proclaimed that the Super Hornet was a "Stealth Aircraft". Since Boeing now owns the B-1B, I bet they'd insist on calling it a "stealth" aircraft.



SeaQueen -> RE: RCS Signatures (7/5/2018 10:12:10 PM)

quote:

A few years ago I got a tour of the Super Hornet production line - one of the Boeing reps proclaimed that the Super Hornet was a "Stealth Aircraft". Since Boeing now owns the B-1B, I bet they'd insist on calling it a "stealth" aircraft.


These days almost all combat aircraft have some radar cross section reducing design features.



Lowlaner2012 -> RE: RCS Signatures (7/9/2018 8:45:13 PM)

Dimitris, is there any ETA on the release of the new DB?

Thanks in advance..



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.265625