RCS system tweak/update?

[ghost]

DB Selector

DB3K

Affected DBID(s)

RCS system

Summary of Changes

Create 4 radar band segments for RCS signatures: (A-B), (C-D), (E-F), (G-M) and take average rcs of each segment just as is done already currently in game RCS is only in 2 segments: (A-D) and (E-M) I recommend segmenting each band individually A-M (13 segments), but that might be a bit too much for now (maybe in the future? ;)

here Raleigh scattering and resonance reflection is shown to amplify RCS in lower bands by up to 30-40 dBsm, so a 0.0001m2 craft is reflected in the A/B bands as a 0.1m2 or 1m2 target. And so on for any other target size. From majority of RCS simulations, VHF/UHF can increase RCS up to 30 to 40dBsm and L-band can increase up to 15-20dBsm. Estimate is RAM reduces RCS of VLO by an average of 5 to 10 dBsm against A-D bands and up to a maximum of 15-20 dBsm against (E-M bands) for the newest VLO planes. here rcs simulations for F-35A (NO RAM) against VHF(A/B), L-band (C/D), S-band (E/F), and X band (I/J) from the front at vertical polarization. Results: VHF (W/O RAM=4.92m2, W/RAM=0.2m2) , L-band (W/O=1.08m2, W/=0.15m2), S-band (W/O=0.61m2, W/=0.01m2) , X-band (0.3m2, 0.005m2). So taking average of RCS W/RAM is (A/B bands = -10dBsm), (C/D bands = -15dBsm), (E/F bands = -20dBsm), and (I/J bands=-25 dBsm) and this is only from -60 to 60 degree viewing angle at vertical polarization. RCS fluctuates from different viewing angle, frequency and vertical/horizontal polarization. Vertical polarization creates most resonance and scattering for larger returns.

as you can see F-35 with RAM coating fluctuates from -16 to -3dBsm (0.3m2-0.01m2) from frontal aspect against VHF

notice how this I/J band simulation for a 6th gen prospective V-wing VLO stealth fighter with RAM coating shows RCS reflections. From the front and rear directly it is -40 to -50 dBsm at 180 degrees and at 0 degrees, but from both sides the RCS spikes to -10 dBsm and even up to 1m2 at 210 and 150 degrees. The average frontal RCS (150 to 210 degrees) averaging at increments of 5 degrees, is -35 dBsm. Side average RCS from 60 to 150 degrees is -20 dBsm. Rear RCS is similar to front but larger at -30 dBsm.

Sources

https://twitter.com/flankerchan

https://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=14732&start=30

https://www.mdpi.com/2226-4310/9/11/734

https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/rcs-simulation-of-f-35-with-and-without-aim-9x.1042794/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/09544100231204378?journalCode=piga

https://www.slideshare.net/javiergismero9/411-radar-cross-section-rcs

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/09544100231204378?journalCode=piga

[PygmalionOfCyprus]

This is a pretty gargantuan change and I'm not going to track it through a ticket. Someone has to pay us for this, and if they do it'll enter our PM flow accordingly. That said, I don't disagree that there are improvements that can be made to our RCS system, so don't see this as a shootdown, just a "not now."

Be careful with these numbers though. They're functionally useless because all the information you actually need to run RCS simulations is classified. Creating a 3D model of a stealth fighter and running it through commercial RCS simulation tech is not a reliable source.

But again, there are definitely improvements we can make. Just not as a casual ticket.

[ghost]

This is a pretty gargantuan change and I'm not going to track it through a ticket. Someone has to pay us for this, and if they do it'll enter our PM flow accordingly. That said, I don't disagree that there are improvements that can be made to our RCS system, so don't see this as a shootdown, just a "not now."

Be careful with these numbers though. They're functionally useless because all the information you actually need to run RCS simulations is classified. Creating a 3D model of a stealth fighter and running it through commercial RCS simulation tech is not a reliable source.

But again, there are definitely improvements we can make. Just not as a casual ticket.

If a donation(s) can help overhaul the RCS system into 4 segments, perhaps more, I'd be happy to. Would $ 700, maybe $ 1000 work in this case? Whatever you think is fair and also is reasonable. Of course segmenting the RCS bands into 13 parts (A-M) would take much more time and effort than tweaking it into 4 segments as I suggest (perhaps a job in excess of $2000?) But let me know please, I'm happy to assist either way. For sake of simplicity and time, the 4 segment RCS system may be more feasible and ideal.

However, I do understand completely. I'm interested in contributing for an RCS overhaul for maximum immersion (best we can achieve video game/simulator wise at least). These 3D radar models are some of the most detailed, accurate depictions out there that do the best in estimating; word of mouth and generalized pinpoint RCS figures from unknown military sources are not preferable - especially when the alternative is technically, mathematically based and simulated via intricate software.

I may have a couple more suggestions you may find interesting besides just an RCS overhaul that may be pretty substantial as well - and will submit them via ticket later on (and make an offer as well for your time and the team's dedication to this game)

Thank you

[PygmalionOfCyprus]

For any paid work I'd have to direct you to Command: Professional Edition; follow-on pricing for specific features would have to be determined by negotiation with the marketing and development teams directly.

I should clarify a little that by closing this ticket it wasn't my intention to say "never gonna happen without a million-dollar contract, get gud". More just that a rework of this scope is sort of beyond the intention of the DB issue tracker, which is more for "hey, this gun should be changed, etc." not "the fundamental basis of stealth in Command should be torn out and rebuilt from the ground up."

We are aware that there are many things we can improve with our stealth modelling, and it has a spot somewhere on the list of "things we'd like to do one day". But I don't want to keep a ticket open here for it. It's not the sort of job someone on the DB team picks up with their free time; it's something the dev team would all have to orient towards and add to our cyclical project plan.

[ghost]

For any paid work I'd have to direct you to Command: Professional Edition; follow-on pricing for specific features would have to be determined by negotiation with the marketing and development teams directly.

I should clarify a little that by closing this ticket it wasn't my intention to say "never gonna happen without a million-dollar contract, get gud". More just that a rework of this scope is sort of beyond the intention of the DB issue tracker, which is more for "hey, this gun should be changed, etc." not "the fundamental basis of stealth in Command should be torn out and rebuilt from the ground up."

We are aware that there are many things we can improve with our stealth modelling, and it has a spot somewhere on the list of "things we'd like to do one day". But I don't want to keep a ticket open here for it. It's not the sort of job someone on the DB team picks up with their free time; it's something the dev team would all have to orient towards and add to our cyclical project plan.

Understood, thank you :)