Is the RCS level of stealth fighters reasonable in the game?

[Sanyr1310]

Is the RCS level of stealth fighters reasonable in the game? The discussion under this issue is of great interest to me. For a long time, I felt that the simulation of RCS in different directions in CMO was a little unreasonable, and the division of RCS values in different radar bands was too rough. Moreover, there is ambiguity between the "optimal value" and the "average value" of the RCS performance of stealth fighters, so we see that the stealth performance of F-22/F-35/J-20/Su-57 and other aircraft is very different.

What do you guys think?

https://github.com/PygmalionOfCyprus/cm ... ssues/4101

[SeaQueen]

The problem is that the actual values are highly classified. Unless you have some evidence to support your opinion, it's really hard to say what they might be. The guys do their best. Unless you're supplying a frequency and polarization dependent 4*PI steradian bugsplat, any values anyone might pick are basically random numbers.

The binning of the RCS bands isn't terrible, it corresponds roughly to "search radars" and "tracking radars." It's an abstraction, but it serves to reflect the frequency dependent nature of RCS, and that while an aircraft might be able to approach some radars quite closely undetected, other radars might have game against it. While these days there might be some lower frequency tracking radars that fall into the "search radar" band, largely as a response to LO and VLO technologies, the phenomenology still stands.

[Sanyr1310]

The problem is that the actual values are highly classified. Unless you have some evidence to support your opinion, it's really hard to say what they might be. The guys do their best. Unless you're supplying a frequency and polarization dependent 4*PI steradian bugsplat, any values anyone might pick are basically random numbers.

The binning of the RCS bands isn't terrible, it corresponds roughly to "search radars" and "tracking radars." It's an abstraction, but it serves to reflect the frequency dependent nature of RCS, and that while an aircraft might be able to approach some radars quite closely undetected, other radars might have game against it. While these days there might be some lower frequency tracking radars that fall into the "search radar" band, largely as a response to LO and VLO technologies, the phenomenology still stands.

So there's nothing we can do? On the grounds of "no confidential data". What I mean is that a conventional layout of a stealth fighter cannot achieve optimal stealth capability at all angles of the aircraft, and the CMO presents all angles at the optimal RCS level.

[Sanyr1310]

At the very least, I don't think the game reflects this drastic RCS variation on the band (about 10 dbsm differnce in game both in band and side signature vs 20-30+ dbsm in almost all reasonable simulation)

f-35a-frontal-rcs-new-absorber-vhfband.png (344.35 KiB) Viewed 2681 times

contour-plot-20x20-deg-f35a-model-x-band.png (262.81 KiB) Viewed 2681 times

f-35a-frontal-rcs-new-absorber-xband.png (449.36 KiB) Viewed 2679 times

You can see that areas around 40 degrees of the body's horizontal plane inevitably have high reflection areas, not to mention the more irregular side will bring more serious reflection.

And about the RAM

{7D3E5F94-8BB5-4761-B088-DD367702F3A4}.png (172.64 KiB) Viewed 2681 times

[Dimitris]

You are asking for the kind of "per specific angle and frequency" RCS fidelity that only CPE provides: https://command.matrixgames.com/?p=5546

So if this is dear to you or critical to your workflow, contact us for a CPE license.

[kahta]

You are asking for the kind of "per specific angle" RCS fidelity that only CPE provides: https://command.matrixgames.com/?p=5546

So if this is dear to you or critical to your workflow, contact us for a CPE license.

Can civilian users buy CPE for personal use?

[Dimitris]

You are asking for the kind of "per specific angle" RCS fidelity that only CPE provides: https://command.matrixgames.com/?p=5546

So if this is dear to you or critical to your workflow, contact us for a CPE license.

Can civilian users buy CPE for personal use?

No, you can buy it only as a company or organization.

[Sanyr1310]

You are asking for the kind of "per specific angle" RCS fidelity that only CPE provides: https://command.matrixgames.com/?p=5546

So if this is dear to you or critical to your workflow, contact us for a CPE license.

I'm not surprised that the CPE version can have such detailed RCS-angle simulations. However, the majority of our paid commercial players are not able to enjoy this feature, and I think the production team needs to make some reasonable improvements in this area as well.

Here's what I think:
① A number of stealth aircraft represented by F-22/F-35/B-2 are simulated with J-20/Su-57/KF-21, which is closer to the "average value" rather than the "optimal value"
② Replace the existing two-stage division simulation of A-D and E-M bands with A more reasonable four-stage division simulation of HF, VHF, UHF, L-M (IEEE) (without changing the NATO band division method, it is only necessary to delete the A-D band and replace it with three separate values of HF, VHF, and UHF). And divide the D-band with less obvious RCS variation into the original E-M band simulation)

Why should I separate the values for HF, VHF, and UHF bands? This is because almost all reliable simulations point out that the RCS values in the above three bands can vary so dramatically that they cannot be arbitrarily simulated to a specific value. Here is one example:

{9064A4AF-86C0-4115-95BB-F26DCEFE0A2A}.png (279.16 KiB) Viewed 2584 times

[HalfLifeExpert]

I think it's just one of the limitations that we as the commercial player base will just have to live with.

With the possible exception of the F-117A, and maybe some of the old Hypothetical stealth aircraft like the A-12 Avenger and F-19A Ghostrider, the RCSs of Stealth aircraft are so tightly guarded that we just won't get close to realistic RCS for those. Decent unclassified guesses is what we can get, no better.

We just can't be sure, as the public, that the Su-57, J-20 etc have inferior RCSs to US made aircraft. They could be comparable or even superior in certain circumstances. It's just an unknown that will remain the case for at least a few decades.

The F-117A may be the one real-world exception, as it's no longer in combat service, apparently just being used for Aggressor roles and testing newer anti-stealth radars. Besides, one was shot down over hostile territory, and the wreckage sent to Russia and China, so it was compromised to adversaries almost 25 years ago. I can foresee us getting more realistic Stealth properties for that aircraft in the future.

And if that happens, I think it could be reasonable for us to get better RCSs for the never-built stealth aircraft in the DB, chiefly the A-12 Avenger II and the F-19A Ghostrider.

Plus, from what I understand, the Professional Edition doesn't provide you with the realistic RCSs for certain aircraft, the end user (such as the USAF) has to punch in that classified data themselves.

[Sanyr1310]

I think it's just one of the limitations that we as the commercial player base will just have to live with.

With the possible exception of the F-117A, and maybe some of the old Hypothetical stealth aircraft like the A-12 Avenger and F-19A Ghostrider, the RCSs of Stealth aircraft are so tightly guarded that we just won't get close to realistic RCS for those. Decent unclassified guesses is what we can get, no better.

We just can't be sure, as the public, that the Su-57, J-20 etc have inferior RCSs to US made aircraft. They could be comparable or even superior in certain circumstances. It's just an unknown that will remain the case for at least a few decades.

The F-117A may be the one real-world exception, as it's no longer in combat service, apparently just being used for Aggressor roles and testing newer anti-stealth radars. Besides, one was shot down over hostile territory, and the wreckage sent to Russia and China, so it was compromised to adversaries almost 25 years ago. I can foresee us getting more realistic Stealth properties for that aircraft in the future.

And if that happens, I think it could be reasonable for us to get better RCSs for the never-built stealth aircraft in the DB, chiefly the A-12 Avenger II and the F-19A Ghostrider.

Plus, from what I understand, the Professional Edition doesn't provide you with the realistic RCSs for certain aircraft, the end user (such as the USAF) has to punch in that classified data themselves.

It was never my point to obsess over classified data that was completely impossible to access. Please note that the problem I pointed out is that the CMO database uses the best RCS performance that can only be obtained from a specific Angle of the stealth aircraft to estimate the front/side/rear hemisphere RCS performance of the F-22, F-35 and other American stealth aircraft, which is completely unreasonable. Numerous simulations have proved that J-20 and Su-57 have LO and VLO capabilities comparable to F-22 and F-35 at specific angles. If we estimate the performance of stealth fighters in the game at an optimal value, then the J-20, Su-57 should also use this estimation method (perhaps not as powerful as the F-35's -30 to -40 DBSM in the database today, but at least we can give a value of -25 to -35 DBSM); If database administrators or development teams think this estimate is unreasonable, then at the very least the F-22, F-35 should be brought back to the same level or slightly better than the J-20, Su-57 (and of course the J-31, KF-21 and Su-75), rather than the apparently unreasonable difference of 30dbsm today.

[Sanyr1310]

Perhaps I may need to include this bro's summary in this topic.

{21603BEC-5DE5-4853-8F31-19FBA759B9F6}.png (175.49 KiB) Viewed 2419 times

[BDukes]

② Replace the existing two-stage division simulation of A-D and E-M bands with A more reasonable four-stage division simulation of HF, VHF, UHF, L-M (IEEE) (without changing the NATO band division method, it is only necessary to delete the A-D band and replace it with three separate values of HF, VHF, and UHF). And divide the D-band with less obvious RCS variation into the original E-M band simulation)

Agreed. This is work, though, that would be resource-intensive and require lots of other changes throughout the sim and databases. I'm also not sure if there isn't another way to handle this. Up to the devs to decide, but I'd feel bad not paying them for it.... Perhaps add this in the request list? It'll get buried here.

I'm also a little cagey about what you think reliable sims do under the hood. You don't think that there is a value with other sims, but there likely is.

Is your argument really... because we don't know the actual value it is probably better to just make them all the same so nobody feels like their nation is being nerfed for whatever reasons?

M

[Sanyr1310]

② Replace the existing two-stage division simulation of A-D and E-M bands with A more reasonable four-stage division simulation of HF, VHF, UHF, L-M (IEEE) (without changing the NATO band division method, it is only necessary to delete the A-D band and replace it with three separate values of HF, VHF, and UHF). And divide the D-band with less obvious RCS variation into the original E-M band simulation)

Agreed. This is work, though, that would be resource-intensive and require lots of other changes throughout the sim and databases. I'm also not sure if there isn't another way to handle this. Up to the devs to decide, but I'd feel bad not paying them for it.... Perhaps add this in the request list? It'll get buried here.

I'm also a little cagey about what you think reliable sims do under the hood. You don't think that there is a value with other sims, but there likely is.

Is your argument really... because we don't know the actual value it is probably better to just make them all the same so nobody feels like their nation is being nerfed for whatever reasons?

M

So? Let a tactical stealth aircraft ignore the laws of physics, have a stealth munitions level of RCS in all directions, ignoring any air defense network at will over any area of engagement, this is a matter of course? You can ignore physics without classified data? I really don't see what's wrong with just stating something more reasonable than "unverifiable classified documents." Wouldn't the most conservative course of action be to apply equal treatment to all units as far as possible where it could not be verified?

Moreover, if you really have to worry about classified data, it seems that there is no point in the existence of a large number of units in this game - the parameters of almost all cutting-edge weapons are highly classified.

[Sanyr1310]

② Replace the existing two-stage division simulation of A-D and E-M bands with A more reasonable four-stage division simulation of HF, VHF, UHF, L-M (IEEE) (without changing the NATO band division method, it is only necessary to delete the A-D band and replace it with three separate values of HF, VHF, and UHF). And divide the D-band with less obvious RCS variation into the original E-M band simulation)

Agreed. This is work, though, that would be resource-intensive and require lots of other changes throughout the sim and databases. I'm also not sure if there isn't another way to handle this. Up to the devs to decide, but I'd feel bad not paying them for it.... Perhaps add this in the request list? It'll get buried here.

I'm also a little cagey about what you think reliable sims do under the hood. You don't think that there is a value with other sims, but there likely is.

Is your argument really... because we don't know the actual value it is probably better to just make them all the same so nobody feels like their nation is being nerfed for whatever reasons?

M

Anyway, thanks for agreeing with my spectrum plan. It's a lot of work, but I believe it's more reasonable.

[BDukes]

② Replace the existing two-stage division simulation of A-D and E-M bands with A more reasonable four-stage division simulation of HF, VHF, UHF, L-M (IEEE) (without changing the NATO band division method, it is only necessary to delete the A-D band and replace it with three separate values of HF, VHF, and UHF). And divide the D-band with less obvious RCS variation into the original E-M band simulation)

Agreed. This is work, though, that would be resource-intensive and require lots of other changes throughout the sim and databases. I'm also not sure if there isn't another way to handle this. Up to the devs to decide, but I'd feel bad not paying them for it.... Perhaps add this in the request list? It'll get buried here.

I'm also a little cagey about what you think reliable sims do under the hood. You don't think that there is a value with other sims, but there likely is.

Is your argument really... because we don't know the actual value it is probably better to just make them all the same so nobody feels like their nation is being nerfed for whatever reasons?

M

So? Let a tactical stealth aircraft ignore the laws of physics, have a stealth munitions level of RCS in all directions, ignoring any air defense network at will over any area of engagement, this is a matter of course? You can ignore physics without classified data? I really don't see what's wrong with just stating something more reasonable than "unverifiable classified documents." Wouldn't the most conservative course of action be to apply equal treatment to all units as far as possible where it could not be verified?

Moreover, if you really have to worry about classified data, it seems that there is no point in the existence of a large number of units in this game - the parameters of almost all cutting-edge weapons are highly classified.

Yes in a world where you didn't have to sell game content but instead the underlying engine. This is why the pro version allows db edit etc as it is, that world. Players of entertainment games want some granularity in these games and in fact, demand it when it relates to their rub of the moment. It is an immersion thing that whether authentic or not, makes things fun. Wanna bet the Chinese clone of this game has nerfed US units and made uber-Chinese units? Should I jump on their forum screaming that our electronics have the right kind of water in them and point to a DCS-sourced graph? (j/k)

My approach has been to do the homework and present arguments with data. If you're willing to show some due diligence/skin in the game the db team and devs are pretty reasonable. The squeaky wheel doesn't work anymore for reasons.

M

[blu3s]

Pilots fly knowing very well the RCS of their planes and approach the enemy with this in mind. Also that RCS peaks don't mean and inmediate detection, things are more complicated IRL, so the tradeoff in the abstraction between the RCS signature and radar operation, and pilot tactics, are not as unbalanced as you can think. Anyways all the graphs that can be done simulating the RCS of any of those aircrafts are at best a wild guess.

(In fact one of the things that happens in command is that platforms by default work in a perfect enviroment unless you degrade the OODA loop or do some tricks with lua, when real life situations show that most of the time there are serious flaws, I can assure you than in CMO F-35/J-20 are detected more times than in any real life situation)

I understand your point, and it's reasonable to ask for a more fine-grain A-D EM Band simulation (not only regarding VLO planes) but to me as player, are more important things to bring to the table in the EW field (and also in Command in general).

[BDukes]

Anyway, thanks for agreeing with my spectrum plan. It's a lot of work, but I believe it's more reasonable.

Yeah I think you're right on this one too. I'm hope they can address this without too much work.

M

[BDukes]

Pilots fly knowing very well the RCS of their planes and approach the enemy with this in mind. Also that RCS peaks don't mean and inmediate detection, things are more complicated IRL, so the tradeoff in the abstraction between the RCS signature and radar operation, and pilot tactics, are not as unbalanced as you can think. Anyways all the graphs that can be done simulating the RCS of any of those aircrafts are at best a wild guess.

(In fact one of the things that happens in command is that platforms by default work in a perfect enviroment unless you degrade the OODA loop or do some tricks with lua, when real life situations show that most of the time there are serious flaws, I can assure you than in CMO F-35/J-20 are detected more times than in any real life situation)

I understand your point, and it's reasonable to ask for a more fine-grain A-D EM Band simulation (not only regarding VLO planes) but to me as player, are more important things to bring to the table in the EW field (and also in Command in general).

I got some issues:
Vlow and VVlow Altitude Bands.
Some of the really nice features with modern radars work with sub radars that aren't as capable as the primary radar so detection to ID chain has to be oriented to those.
Radar modes change

Mike

[Sanyr1310]

Pilots fly knowing very well the RCS of their planes and approach the enemy with this in mind. Also that RCS peaks don't mean and inmediate detection, things are more complicated IRL, so the tradeoff in the abstraction between the RCS signature and radar operation, and pilot tactics, are not as unbalanced as you can think. Anyways all the graphs that can be done simulating the RCS of any of those aircrafts are at best a wild guess.

(In fact one of the things that happens in command is that platforms by default work in a perfect enviroment unless you degrade the OODA loop or do some tricks with lua, when real life situations show that most of the time there are serious flaws, I can assure you than in CMO F-35/J-20 are detected more times than in any real life situation)

I understand your point, and it's reasonable to ask for a more fine-grain A-D EM Band simulation (not only regarding VLO planes) but to me as player, are more important things to bring to the table in the EW field (and also in Command in general).

Thank you all for your recognition of my microwave band division method. I believe that as long as similar opinions are expressed enough, the development team members will certainly do more thinking and improvement in this aspect.

[Sanyr1310]

Agreed. This is work, though, that would be resource-intensive and require lots of other changes throughout the sim and databases. I'm also not sure if there isn't another way to handle this. Up to the devs to decide, but I'd feel bad not paying them for it.... Perhaps add this in the request list? It'll get buried here.

I'm also a little cagey about what you think reliable sims do under the hood. You don't think that there is a value with other sims, but there likely is.

Is your argument really... because we don't know the actual value it is probably better to just make them all the same so nobody feels like their nation is being nerfed for whatever reasons?

M

So? Let a tactical stealth aircraft ignore the laws of physics, have a stealth munitions level of RCS in all directions, ignoring any air defense network at will over any area of engagement, this is a matter of course? You can ignore physics without classified data? I really don't see what's wrong with just stating something more reasonable than "unverifiable classified documents." Wouldn't the most conservative course of action be to apply equal treatment to all units as far as possible where it could not be verified?

Moreover, if you really have to worry about classified data, it seems that there is no point in the existence of a large number of units in this game - the parameters of almost all cutting-edge weapons are highly classified.

Yes in a world where you didn't have to sell game content but instead the underlying engine. This is why the pro version allows db edit etc as it is, that world. Players of entertainment games want some granularity in these games and in fact, demand it when it relates to their rub of the moment. It is an immersion thing that whether authentic or not, makes things fun. Wanna bet the Chinese clone of this game has nerfed US units and made uber-Chinese units? Should I jump on their forum screaming that our electronics have the right kind of water in them and point to a DCS-sourced graph? (j/k)

My approach has been to do the homework and present arguments with data. If you're willing to show some due diligence/skin in the game the db team and devs are pretty reasonable. The squeaky wheel doesn't work anymore for reasons.

M

So I can understand that you are reluctant to give up the super F-35 and F-22 because if you lose it, the fun you have in the game will turn into a nightmare? If that's the case, then I'm sorry to interrupt your dream.

I and others didn't try to prove anything with the DCS data, because DCS is a flight simulation software that focuses on flight simulation. I know what you mean, you think I "missed the point" and "wanted to strengthen the Chinese unit". Note that first of all, I also mentioned the problems with the Su-57 and the KF-21, and it can be said that in the CMO, except for the US units, it seems that every other country's units have different degrees of weakness than the US units. Second, I don't think I'm missing too much of the point, because the game's simulation involves multiple areas of confrontation, and when the dev team is faced with data that they don't have access to, it makes sense that they will take some "non-discriminatory" measures (such as dividing sensor performance by technology age level), but why not do it in more places?

The production team has made it clear in the CPE simulation aircraft RCS web link posted above: they have adopted the results of professional and credible open source simulation. In addition to consulting with other professionals, they are willing to let CPE users DIY build a more detailed RCS simulation, and this more detailed simulation brings the RCS data from a more macro perspective closer to the "average" rather than the "optimal value." Bringing this "trend"/" overall performance "into the commercial version is no problem at all.