Typical RCS values for fighter, bomber, cruise missile
Executive summary
Typical radar cross section (RCS) values cluster by platform type but vary by design era, viewing aspect and measurement conditions: non‑stealth fighters commonly range from a few to tens of square metres, modern stealth fighters claim values down to 10^-4 m^2, large bombers can be reduced into sub‑square‑metre ranges with advanced shaping, and cruise missiles typically occupy the 0.01–1 m^2 band depending on design and coatings [1] [2] [3]. All published numbers are approximations drawn from open sources and modeling studies; many militaries treat precise RCS data as sensitive, so reported figures should be read as indicative rather than definitive [4] [3].
1. Fighters: a spectrum from bulky to bumblebee
Conventional fourth‑generation fighters that lack specialized low‑observable shaping commonly present RCS figures in the single‑digit to double‑digit m^2 range — for example, older MiG types are cited around 15 m^2 while smaller legacy jets like the MiG‑21 are reported around 3 m^2 — and specific models such as some Su‑series jets are quoted near 1–3 m^2 depending on source [1] [5]. By contrast, purpose‑built stealth fighters dramatically reduce returns: open reporting places the F‑22 in the 0.0001 m^2 neighborhood (a “bumblebee”‑sized signature) while F‑117/F‑35/F‑22 family discussions show orders‑of‑magnitude decreases compared with legacy fighters [1] [4]. That spread reflects differences in shaping, internal weapons bays and radar‑absorbent materials, and also the fact that RCS varies strongly with aspect and frequency — head‑on, side and rear signatures differ substantially [4].
2. Bombers: large airframe, stealthy surface
Large bombers naturally present larger physical areas, but modern stealth design can cut those returns into the sub‑square‑metre regime; for instance, some open estimates place the B‑2 Spirit’s RCS at around 0.75 m^2 or, in other public claims, as small as 0.01 m^2 in certain aspects, illustrating the divergence of reported figures [2]. Older jet‑powered strategic bombers without LO design will have much larger RCSs, but reliable public numbers for many legacy models (TU‑160, H‑6, etc.) are sparse and often contested in open forums [5] [4]. The key point in public literature is that stealth shaping and materials can move bombers from easily detectable to much harder-to‑track regimes, but exact metrics vary by reporting source and measurement geometry [2] [4].
3. Cruise missiles: small, variable, and often modeled
Open sources give typical cruise missiles a broad range: some UAV‑like cruise missiles are cited near 1 m^2, legacy designs such as the Tomahawk have been reported at under 0.05 m^2, and analysts note that missiles with RCS below about 0.1 m^2 become difficult for many SAM fire‑control radars to track effectively [2] [3]. Academic and engineering work frequently models cruise missile RCS with physical‑optics and method‑of‑moments tools, producing case‑by‑case results that depend on nose shapes, control surfaces, sea‑skimming attitude and materials [6] [3] [7]. Online hobbyist and forum posts also offer calculations and anecdotal estimates but are uneven in reliability [8] [5].
4. Detection context and why ranges matter
RCS numbers are only part of the detection equation: radar sensitivity, frequency band, geometry and counter‑measures determine real detection ranges — for example, open reporting states that an AWACS was designed to detect 7 m^2 targets at about 370 km while typical non‑stealth cruise missiles would be detected at shorter ranges and stealthy missiles substantially closer, compressing intercept time from many minutes to only a few [2]. That operational framing explains why modest reductions in RCS can have disproportionate tactical value even when absolute RCS estimates are contested [2] [4].
5. What the sources agree — and where uncertainty remains
The consulted public sources and modeling studies unanimously show large variation in reported RCS values tied to platform class, design vintage and measurement conditions, and they repeatedly warn that precise numbers are sensitive, often modeled, and sometimes politicized or duplicated across secondary sites [2] [3] [4]. Where disagreement appears — e.g., the B‑2’s RCS or the exact number for a given Su‑family jet — it reflects differences in cited measurement aspect, frequency band, or secrecy and should be treated as an uncertainty rather than a contradiction in the physics [2] [1] [5].