Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
What is the radar cross section (RCS) range for modern stealth fighters versus legacy fighters?
Executive summary
Public reporting and defense commentary place modern “stealth” fifth‑generation fighters’ radar cross sections (RCS) in the range from roughly 0.0001 m² (very small, often cited for the F‑22) up to around 0.05–0.5 m² for other contemporary designs; legacy non‑stealth fighters are typically measured in square metres (e.g., several m²) and are far more visible on radar (examples: conventional fighters ~6 m²) [1] [2] [3]. Coverage is largely based on estimates and open‑source comparisons rather than authoritative manufacturer or government disclosures, so numbers vary by source and measurement conditions [2] [1].
1. How journalists and analysts frame RCS numbers: “Marbles, golf balls and bumblebees”
Media and analyst pieces translate RCS into everyday analogies — a “marble,” “golf ball,” or even “bumble bee” — to communicate that top stealth fighters can have extremely small radar signatures; for instance, several outlets claim the F‑22’s RCS is around 0.0001 m² and describe other fifth‑generation types as having RCS values in ranges such as 0.0001–0.05 m² or higher depending on type and aspect [1] [2] [4]. These colorful comparisons are useful for readers but reflect rounded, public estimates rather than precise, test‑verified values provided by militaries [2].
2. Typical comparison: stealth fighters versus legacy fighters
Open sources contrast stealth fighters (RCS often cited in fractions of a square metre) with legacy non‑stealth fighters (measured in whole square metres). One compilation notes conventional fighters such as an F‑4 having roughly 6 m² RCS, while stealth designs are orders of magnitude smaller — the B‑2 and modern fighters are reported at much lower figures, sometimes down to 0.01 m² or below in cited reporting [3] [1]. That difference is central to stealth doctrine: reducing RCS dramatically shortens detection range for radar [5] [3].
3. Why published numbers vary so widely — measurement, aspect and mission matters
RCS depends on radar frequency band, aspect angle (head‑on vs. rear), whether weapons bays are open, external stores attached, and environment; sources emphasize that simple headline numbers can be misleading because a “stealth” airframe’s RCS can more than double during hard turns or when weapons bays open [5] [2]. Academic and technical discussion also stresses that RCS reported in X‑band (fire‑control radars) can differ greatly from S‑band or VHF detections, so a single number rarely captures operational detectability [6] [5].
4. Specific figures repeated in public reporting — strengths and limits
Several outlets repeatedly cite very low RCS claims for the F‑22 (~0.0001 m²) and much larger numbers for some rivals (e.g., Su‑57 ~0.5 m²) or mid values for other fifth‑generation types (~0.05 m²), but these are frequently estimates or attributed to non‑official sources [1] [7] [8]. The reporting itself often notes that such numbers are estimates and will change with measurement conditions; some sources explicitly say RCS values are estimated and situation‑dependent [2] [1].
5. Detection consequences: orders of magnitude matter
Technical explanations in the public record make a clear point: reducing RCS by a factor of 10,000 reduces detection distance by a factor of 10, illustrating why moving from several square metres to fractions of a square metre has strategic effect [5]. GlobalSecurity reporting ties specific radar system detection ranges to target RCS figures to show how these numbers translate into detection windows [3].
6. Competing perspectives and caveats to readers
Defence‑industry and enthusiast sources tend to rank aircraft by claimed RCS, often asserting clear winners; other technical sources caution that RCS is only one part of detectability (sensor networks, electronic warfare, tactics, multistatic radars can mitigate stealth). Wikipedia and technical analyses underline that stealth performance is holistic — shaping, materials, sensors and operational practice — and that public figures are best treated as indicative rather than definitive [9] [5] [6].
7. Bottom line for your question
Available reporting generally places modern fifth‑generation fighters’ RCS from about 0.0001 m² (very low, often cited for top U.S. types) up through the 0.01–0.5 m² band for other contemporary stealth designs, while legacy fighters are typically several m² (examples around ~6 m² are quoted for older fighters), though exact values in any operational setting depend on radar band, aspect and configuration [1] [2] [3]. Note that public sources are estimates and subject to change; classified testing and operational data are not available in open reporting [2] [6].