Stealth in BMS
-
@drtbkj said in Stealth in BMS:
Here are some numbers for you:
RL Frontal RCS (square meters)/Values in BMS( if frontal and units unknown)
F-18C= 1-3/1.23
-F-18E=1 /1.059
F-16-1.2 / 1
F-35A= .0015(I’ve also see .005 ) / 0.169
F-22= .00015 / 0.21
J-20= 1-3 / 0.41
One important caveat to our discussion is that the BMS Editor’s unit of measure (square meters, square feet, etc.) is not given, nor if this is frontal RCS. A clarification of these would be much appreciated,
…
Comments are welcome.
I just briefly overlooked discussion…did not see answer (perhaps is hidden somewhere)
So just in short - IIRC, Falcon 4.0 RCS was the same on whole sphere (average), but it was changed later…?Unit for measure is Viper, so “F-16 is 1”, others are more or less…double F16 RCS is 2, smaller RCS planes 0.X…
Its not regular unit, its “to F-16 comparison”. (not sure about latest BMS code, this was Falcon 4 general rule imo)Sorry if someone answered already.
-
@Lukas hello, yes and no… Maybe BMS mathematical law is not linear… maybe it follows a non-linear slope.
-
@javelin10 said: I see BMS as remaining an F-16 simulator for the forseeable future.
Almost…
Falcon IS an F-16 simulator; Ispo facto it is named “Falcon”.
Ergo - the adjective “foreseeable” is not required.
pr0n
-
@drtbkj said in Stealth in BMS:
Good Day, All.
If you’ve been following the the OFM Journal thread, you’ve seen that we are flight testing the F-35C, for flight model refinement. While we’ve been doing so, we have also experimented with Stealth.
https://militaryembedded.com/radar-ew/signal-processing/radar-cross-section-the-measure-of-stealth#:~:text=The 5G F-35 has,size of a golf ball.Here are some numbers for you:
RL Frontal RCS (square meters)/Values in BMS( if frontal and units unknown)
F-18C= 1-3/1.23
-F-18E=1 /1.059
F-16-1.2 / 1
F-35A= .0015(I’ve also see .005 ) / 0.169
F-22= .00015 / 0.21
J-20= 1-3 / 0.41
One important caveat to our discussion is that the BMS Editor’s unit of measure (square meters, square feet, etc.) is not given, nor if this is frontal RCS. A clarification of these would be much appreciated,
The point of all this that in our testing shows true Stealth has a significant effect on BMS play. When we flight tested the MQ-25 tanker we tried a RCS of .005 and you could not lock it up on radar! I’ve created a “Flight Test” TE . In it the J-20 keeps it’s 0.4 but our test F-35C has 0.5 Where before the J-20 is shooting from beyond AIM-120 range , now you can get close enough to get to shoot(even close enough to get burn through when they jam)
It may not be an exaggeration to call it a “game changer”. And that, my friends, is the point of this post. Some might say Stealth " takes the game out of the game" . What do you think? Do you want us to include Stealth in OFMKTO and perhaps the other theaters we help with? Or, leave it to you to adjust(which BTW is very easy to do)
Comments are welcome.
JoeThere is no Unit in bMS
1 is just reference for f16 and al’ the rest scales to it
So basically you need to scale all of them from real f16 RCS value
-
@Mav-jp Thank you for the useful insight Mav!
Now we only have to decide what’s considered the real RCS value of the F-16.
Some sources claim that the exported F-16 has a frontal RCS of 4 to 5 m^2, while others claim some USAF squadrons that have been painted with Have Glass V have a frontal RCS of 1.2m^2.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/did-f-16-just-go-stealth-107806
https://www.key.aero/article/have-glass-making-f-16-less-observableWhich kinda further complicates things as the sources Joe gave claim that the F18 has an RCS value of 1m^2.
All in all, an interesting discussion.
-
@Mav-jp said in Stealth in BMS:
@drtbkj said in Stealth in BMS:
Good Day, All.
If you’ve been following the the OFM Journal thread, you’ve seen that we are flight testing the F-35C, for flight model refinement. While we’ve been doing so, we have also experimented with Stealth.
https://militaryembedded.com/radar-ew/signal-processing/radar-cross-section-the-measure-of-stealth#:~:text=The 5G F-35 has,size of a golf ball.Here are some numbers for you:
RL Frontal RCS (square meters)/Values in BMS( if frontal and units unknown)
F-18C= 1-3/1.23
-F-18E=1 /1.059
F-16-1.2 / 1
F-35A= .0015(I’ve also see .005 ) / 0.169
F-22= .00015 / 0.21
J-20= 1-3 / 0.41
One important caveat to our discussion is that the BMS Editor’s unit of measure (square meters, square feet, etc.) is not given, nor if this is frontal RCS. A clarification of these would be much appreciated,
The point of all this that in our testing shows true Stealth has a significant effect on BMS play. When we flight tested the MQ-25 tanker we tried a RCS of .005 and you could not lock it up on radar! I’ve created a “Flight Test” TE . In it the J-20 keeps it’s 0.4 but our test F-35C has 0.5 Where before the J-20 is shooting from beyond AIM-120 range , now you can get close enough to get to shoot(even close enough to get burn through when they jam)
It may not be an exaggeration to call it a “game changer”. And that, my friends, is the point of this post. Some might say Stealth " takes the game out of the game" . What do you think? Do you want us to include Stealth in OFMKTO and perhaps the other theaters we help with? Or, leave it to you to adjust(which BTW is very easy to do)
Comments are welcome.
JoeThere is no Unit in bMS
1 is just reference for f16 and al’ the rest scales to it
So basically you need to scale all of them from real f16 RCS value
Thanks, Mav, for that confirmation.
-
@unkindled said in Stealth in BMS:
@Mav-jp Thank you for the useful insight Mav!
Now we only have to decide what’s considered the real RCS value of the F-16.
Some sources claim that the exported F-16 has a frontal RCS of 4 to 5 m^2, while others claim some USAF squadrons that have been painted with Have Glass V have a frontal RCS of 1.2m^2.
https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/did-f-16-just-go-stealth-107806
https://www.key.aero/article/have-glass-making-f-16-less-observableWhich kinda further complicates things as the sources Joe gave claim that the F18 has an RCS value of 1m^2.
All in all, an interesting discussion.
Hi, Unkindled. Thanks to Mav’s response, we now know what we need to do( Ie: compare to the Viper). You see, the BMS F-18C value is 1.23… if, memory serves. That seems like a good value. The F-18E will be lower
-
@drtbkj I may be missing something, but if we take the reported RCS of the F-18 mentioned in the two sources you have provided as truth, then the F-18 has a lower value. Not sure by how much relatively speaking.
If we assume that modern (as in now currently used) F-16C have an RCS of 1.2m^2, shouldn’t we divide the F-18’s RCS value by it to scale it to real world data (assuming a linear function in BMS). Therefore wouldn’t a higher value for the F-18 be “wrong”? E.g. In BMS F-16 RCS is 1, actual RCS is 1.2, F-18 RL is 1, so F-18 in BMS should have a value of 0.8333.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, haven’t managed to read the other source concerning RCS from the NPS.
-
You guys will pork completely Falcon.
You cant simply normalize the RCS of new acft based on the F-16. It does not work this way. The “RCS” in DB is a normalization factor in the radar range equation in Falcon. Did you check the excell table I put the link?
Moreover, the radar range equation DOES NOT scale linear with the radar cross section. -
@Mav-jp
Unless you have rewritten completely, this is not correct.
I dont think you have rewritten since the “RCS” are still similar to the old ones, i.e. I dont see the changes that would indicate that the code takes into account the real RCS in the calculation.The “RCS” in the Database is a multiplication factor for the nominal radar range:
Radar Detecion Range= Nominal Range (from DB) x “RCS” (from DB)If you plug the real RCS, it will simply not work, because the real RCS goes with ^1/4 in the max radar range formula.
EDIT: BY consequence, all max radar ranges in the DB are the nominal radar ranges where acft like the F-16C is detected…“RCS” is 1 (=normalized).
@drtbkj
Here is an example using the CMO DB as baseline (“true”) to calculate such “RCS” factor in BMS (all frontal values for E-M bands):
#1 Shows that BMS “RCS” factor matches the calculated ones using CMO, taking into account the corresponding power law.
#2 Shows that this matching gets even better if one takes into account an average RCS from CMO. Compare yellow marked cells for the case of F-15C -
@javelin10 said in Stealth in BMS:
I voted yes. I see BMS as remaining an F-16 simulator for the forseeable future, but if real life vipers may soon have to contend with stealthy adversaries, then we should have the choice to make theatres that represent this. No-one has to fly any particular theatre after all.
The way I see it is as a question of pure technical feasibility and how well-modelled ‘stealth’ will be.
Real life F-16 may soon have to deal with this threat, but real life F-16’s also still get updated with new toys (AESA radar etc.). So if you want to realistically model dealing with this new threat, then the BMS F-16 also needs to be updated. And most of the information on these new toys are still classified, so this will be difficult to do in a realistic way I’m afraid.
Interesting article on the F-16’s future:
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/air-force-holding-off-developing-new-f-16-replacement-for-now"608 F-16s from Blocks 40/42 and 50/52 — the service’s youngest F-16s — will receive a total of 22 modifications under the program. Planned updates include the addition of a Center Display Unit, a Programmable Data Generator, and “several other key hardware components to modernize the aircraft.” In addition, the F-16 will receive the AN/APG-83 Active Electronically Scanned Array radar (AESA), new electronic warfare capabilities, advanced mission computer, and a communications suite upgrade that includes an updated Link-16 datalink capability. The USAF says this new communication system will convert the fleet to “a high-speed data network.”
"Mark Rossi, Northrop Grumman’s director of SABR programs, told The War Zone that the addition of the SABR was the closest thing an F-16 could get to F-35 performance within the limitations of the jet. "
-
This post is deleted! -
@tiag said in Stealth in BMS:
@Mav-jp
Unless you have rewritten completely, this is not correct.
I dont think you have rewritten since the “RCS” are still similar to the old ones, i.e. I dont see the changes that would indicate that the code takes into account the real RCS in the calculation.The “RCS” in the Database is a multiplication factor for the nominal radar range:
Radar Detecion Range= Nominal Range (from DB) x “RCS” (from DB)If you plug the real RCS, it will simply not work, because the real RCS goes with ^1/4 in the max radar range formula.
EDIT: BY consequence, all max radar ranges in the DB are the nominal radar ranges where acft like the F-16C is detected…“RCS” is 1 (=normalized).
@drtbkj
Here is an example using the CMO DB as baseline (“true”) to calculate such “RCS” factor in BMS (all frontal values for E-M bands):
#1 Shows that BMS “RCS” factor matches the calculated ones using CMO, taking into account the corresponding power law.
#2 Shows that this matching gets even better if one takes into account an average RCS from CMO. Compare yellow marked cells for the case of F-15CYou misread me completely , I never said we need to plug real values
I said RCS real values need to be scaled on the f16 real value vs 1
If (4) power factor need to be taken into account need to be checked with current code
however I’m not sure the current DB values have been done with a power factor. This data is there since 2002/2004 , did you check if current DB more or less match Scaled RCS with (1/4) power factor ?
Also indeed average RCS values vs incidence must be taken into account and not only the lowest
I had the intention to code RCS vs incidence but I forgot and now it’s over .
-
@Mav-jp Sorry, I understood well what you wrote but I thought that @drtbkj and @unkindled got it wrong, by reading their messages. My message was more to them.
“Did you check if current DB more or less match Scaled RCS with (1/4) power factor ?”
Yes, it matches. I wrote a quick script to extract the RCS from CMO DB, then calculated an average frontal/side RCS, then scaled to F-16C RCS, then used the power law, then compared to BMS.
This data is graphed below: X-Axis is “RCS” factor from the BMS 4.36 DB, Y-Axis is the calculated (as decribed in the previous line) from CMO DB.
Both data more or less match.
So, if someone wants to edit correctly the “RCS” factor in BMS, it needs to take into account the power law. Or you change the code and the whole RCS in the DB needs to be re-done.
-
Go for realistic RCS values in BMS!!!
-
@unkindled said in Stealth in BMS:
@drtbkj I may be missing something, but if we take the reported RCS of the F-18 mentioned in the two sources you have provided as truth, then the F-18 has a lower value. Not sure by how much relatively speaking.
If we assume that modern (as in now currently used) F-16C have an RCS of 1.2m^2, shouldn’t we divide the F-18’s RCS value by it to scale it to real world data (assuming a linear function in BMS). Therefore wouldn’t a higher value for the F-18 be “wrong”? E.g. In BMS F-16 RCS is 1, actual RCS is 1.2, F-18 RL is 1, so F-18 in BMS should have a value of 0.8333.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, haven’t managed to read the other source concerning RCS from the NPS.
Thanks again for the replies. Our original question was whether or not to make rcs changes in OFMKTO 1.5. As you can see, we didn’t do that. We simply were not ready, and the more I study (inc. Tiag’s link) the more there is to learn!
Unkindled, your method seems right. I have seen the 1.2 value for the Viper, others use 1. Finding accurate real life values, or at least a set of values we agree on, is a big part of the puzzle. The J-20 we’ve talked about in the other thread seems to have a rl value of 1-3, yet BMS has it at 0.4. But, that may be accurate frontally. One thing to note with the F-18 values is whether we’re talking about the 18C or the Super Hornet. The predominant value I see for the Legacy is “1-3”, so the 1.2… in BMS seems reasonable. It seems logical that the Viper would have lower frontal rcs then the F-18C. For the Rhino, on the other hand, I’ve seen values of 0.1. I agree with your .0833 for the Rhino .
Tiag, The bigger question we have is where does the Membership want us to go with this, and where CAN we go with this? Input like yours is invaluable. I saw your post over in our Discord, let’s continue that. In fact, anyone who wants to have a real time conversation ,join us on the help-resources channel on our Discord
In the meantime, I’d like the Group’s opinions on the following methodology. As Mav has already busted me for making assumptions I’ll try to keep them to a minimum.- I suggest we focus on frontal values, and agree on a real life list to use… BMS seems to have one value for rcs, independent of aspect. The RL Viper has a good rcs from the front, not as good from the side. So, if we can only adjust one, let’s do frontal. Another reason is that it would be most impactful on the frontal BVR engagement, that seem to be a predominant one in BMS.
- Investigate other sensors- Some have commented on the other aspects of Stealth. Unfortunately, IR Stealth seems to be in the hard code models, beyond our reach. But, in the Editor there are a couple of listings for IRST’s . Could they be useful? AESA seems beyond our reach. but the BMS Editor does have changeable detection ranges for the various radars. Could we simulate that aspect of AESA?
3)Overview- First, we determine what we can do. There is obviously a LOT os Science to this, but what can we do in BMS? From there, decide where we want to go with it.
-
@tiag said in Stealth in BMS:
Sorry, I understood well what you wrote but I thought that @drtbkj and @unkindled got it wrong, by reading their messages. My message was more to them.
“Did you check if current DB more or less match Scaled RCS with (1/4) power factor ?”
Hi @tiag, thanks for the correction. I was mostly talking in hypotheticals and making assumptions not necessarily about what the actual BMS value should be for an aircraft, but what RL value to base the calculations for BMS.
As various sources from different moments in time mention different values for the same aircraft in general (e.g. not specifying which F-16 block that value corresponds to), or for the same revision of an aircraft (e.g. saying that the Block 40 has an RCS value of X, without specifying if that Block 40 has been through any “upgrading” programs that could differentiate its RCS value).
Hence the really naive assumption that BMS uses a linear function to make my point clearer with a more practical example.
Unfortunately I haven’t had the time to properly read through your linked excel file.
Also, as I am unaware, could you fill me in on what CMO is? Is it the war-sim game Command: Modern Operations?If so, how can we trust that the values its DB has are accurate? Again, I know it only by name so I don’t know how trustworthy/reputable/realistic it is. But I think it further proves what I’m trying to say and what Joe said in his latest reply.
With so many sources concerning what is the “real” RCS value of an aircraft, which do we choose and why?
I think we can even further complicate it by going on to say which RCS value do we choose depending on the era each theater tries to simulate. Would/should one choose the same value for Balkans, which “takes place” in late 90s and mid to late 00s, as they would for stock KTO or 80s ITO or even ODS in MidEast in their effort to strive for realism?
-
There are a load of figures on the Internet that have mostly been pulled out of someones Ass I think nothing more.
cmano is just a game in the public domain so some info will be accurate and some will be way off…like RCS values.
The National Interest has never been a credible source…Jon Lake has made a career of providing naff information.
I have head on clean figures from better sources that are different and probably just as useless.
So yes different versions of F-16 and at least 5 generations of Have Glass from 1983 as is known.
At some point the pylons were improved and RCS will also change with weapons…then CFTs added.happy guessing
-
FWIW, there is a related discussion regarding the future of DCS in the face of 5th gen vs older planes, in the Hoggit subreddit: https://reddit.com/r/hoggit/comments/x1q38w/where_is_dcs_modern_aircraft_going_to_go_in_the/
Maybe some arguments and insights from that thread are helpful for this thread here.
If you take a step back, the linked discussion is IMHO not really DCS-specific, but a proxy for a discussion about the future of any game modelled after the real world, where more-or-less recent developments in the real world are causing friction for game development and player experience. How to steer the game and its community in such a context? Keeping it very realisitic is nice, but at which point and for whom in the player base does the fun in the game stop? Focus only on a certain time area like cold war to keep different factions reasonably balanced (and thus, arguably, more enjoyable for a larger player base in a game where different factions are competing) vs. incorporating recent tech so the game retains its state-of-the-art flight sim feeling for players? Introduce features/properties like stealth when the majority of “things” in the game can’t deal with them? Adress the issue with mission design, e.g. creating scenarios with less A/A and more A/G? And so on.
I am new to the genre of Falcon BMS, DCS, et al., so I did not vote yet in this poll because I haven’t experienced much of the gameplay yet. Mostly listening to what people bring up as pro/con arguments here (stealth yes/no/how exactly).
PS: Personally, I started learning BMS a few days ago. I am knee-deep into tutorials, the manuals, etc. right now. So stealth or not, everything in BMS is new and shiny to me.
-
@unkindled said in Stealth in BMS:
I think we can even further complicate it by going on to say which RCS value do we choose depending on the era each theater tries to simulate. Would/should one choose the same value for Balkans, which “takes place” in late 90s and mid to late 00s, as they would for stock KTO or 80s ITO or even ODS in MidEast in their effort to strive for realism?
First, Elegantly, welcome to BMS!
We can all agree that RCS values on the 'Net are all over the place.
Unkindled, your quote above addresses what I call the Big Picture Question. AFIAK, the RCS and possible other aspects changes listed in my last post are acdata and/or Editor changes, at least without hard code access. Those values are Theater, not campaign, specific. In other words, OFMKTO, for example, could not be made Stealthy or non -Stealthy in it’s entirety . But the campaigns within OFM can be adjusted. If you want an earlier era non-stealthy campaign, simply don’t include stealth jets. If you want a stealth campaign, exclude the Viper, Hornet, etc. The issue with that of course is if you want to explore the RL Viper/Hornet/other pilot issue of dealing with Stealth. You also have the issue of a lot of BMS pilots fly the F-16-50 and/or the F-18C in earlier era campaigns.
Earlier in this thread I wrote about the F-35 v. J-20 testing that had an impact on me. It changed the dynamic of the engagement. So, once again it becomes a question of where do we go from here? I should probably mention again that our goal with OFMKTO is not to make it a Stealth or Non-Stealth Sim . All we’re discussing is to make RCS as accurate as possible within the boundaries of what we can do within the BMS structure