F-117

I think from time to time the community is obligated to create a wishlist entry for the iconic f-117.

it's mission profile is obviously not the most interesting of all, but you could say that about other modules too. also on the other hand it is the only "modern" "bomber" aircraft that would fit well into the scale of dcs map sizes.

but all this arguments are boring: just look at it. don't you want to learn to fly it? don't you want to try to keep in in the air with a flight control malfunction? don't you want to glide above iraki radar undetected? don't you want to get targeted by some smart-ass serbians, who figured out your vulnerability?

+1

(Also, there should be (at least) some static ones parked at Tonopah TTR at all times.)

Is stealth implemented in DCS at all? No, it is not. Try putting AI F-117 against AI SAM and see for yourself.

DCS grade module is not an option (for now), F-117 technology is classified and still in use. No way there is enough data to create a flight model alone, not to mention all other systems.

Would it be interesting as FC3 type module? Perhaps it would gather its advocates.

F-117s

+1

 

(Also, there should be (at least) some static ones parked at Tonopah TTR at all times.)

F-117s are kept in climate-controlled hangars to maintain their airworthiness and stealth materials quality at an appropriate level.

We should at least have a new AI model. The current looks just bad. :cry:

Is stealth implemented in DCS at all? No, it is not.

Radar cross section is simulated already, but maybe not active for SAMs and/or AI controlled units. Should be very much doable though. With every new complex module comes new simualtion tech to DCS world and basic stealth is not that complicated actually.

F-117 technology is classified and still in use. No way there is enough data to create a flight model alone, not to mention all other systems.

Well, at least you could simulate the aerodynamics of it in real time... on an old smartphone, because i think it is safe to say, that it is aerodynamically the crudest aircfraft ever produced in numbers...

However, if everything else is indeed classified still, you are right, that it would be very difficult to make a realistic simulation. It would also be forbidden probably;)

Are you sure though, that it is still classified? I always thought of it as outdated by today's standards...

Oh yes it is...

Radar cross section is simulated already, but maybe not active for SAMs and/or AI controlled units. Should be very much doable though. With every new complex module comes new simualtion tech to DCS world and basic stealth is not that complicated actually.

 

 

Well, at least you could simulate the aerodynamics of it in real time... on an old smartphone, because i think it is safe to say, that it is aerodynamically the crudest aircfraft ever produced in numbers...

However, if everything else is indeed classified still, you are right, that it would be very difficult to make a realistic simulation. It would also be forbidden probably;)

Are you sure though, that it is still classified? I always thought of it as outdated by today's standards...

The jet is classified (lots of "modern" stealth is based on the technology developed for Nighthawk) and still operated in NTTR. No other information was given as to what it is currently used for.

My comments were also coming from the point that ED once mentioned they are no longer interested in doing projects without appropriate real-life data sets. I think it was in an interview somewhere.

Is stealth implemented in DCS at all? No, it is not. Try putting AI F-117 against AI SAM and see for yourself.

 

DCS grade module is not an option (for now), F-117 technology is classified and still in use. No way there is enough data to create a flight model alone, not to mention all other systems.

Would it be interesting as FC3 type module? Perhaps it would gather its advocates.

Now I don’t program or have done any modules. But if I remember researching the F-117 stealth capabilities is that it isn’t invisible, but delays the search radar from tracking you. So they will see you, but after you have flown away. Keep in mind that an old SA-2 was able to shoot one down, because the general moved the site randomly, so the F-117 flight planners had him fly right over the site. So another part is planning your flight to try and avoid Sam sites.

I remeber making a thread about it and got flamed lmao

And to the whole classified thing, a quick search brought plenty of manuals, but I haven’t read them all and don’t know if they are real or not. But stealth tech is still classified, perhaps we could substitute what the material is, with what it does somewhat. I would assume we don’t need 100% of all information on the stealth tech, but add an in game mechanic that acts as a substitute for it. I wouldn’t mind if it was FC3 as well. The F-117 is used for deep penetration strike, not sead. I also remember reading that when the bomb bays are open the plane is no longer stealthy so that’s a risk. For me personally I would love a new role and different type of aircraft, but I also understand why the module would be difficult to make.

That!

We should at least have a new AI model. The current looks just bad. :cry:

It would be awesome!

Yes, looks really bad. But there are others that don't look too good either. Especially, bombers. transporters but there are plenty of things to improve graphically.

The F-117 would be interesting and cool to have in DCS but I am not sure all of its systems have been fully de-classified. Below are two of the most recent articles I have rad about the F-117. In one of them they mention that they will eventually be destroyed except for a very few destined for museums. The site also has links to other great F-117 articles they have done in the past.

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22515/heres-a-highly-interesting-radio-recording-from-the-f-117s-latest-flight-over-nevada

http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/22487/new-video-of-f-117s-flying-out-of-tonopah-emerges-despite-their-fates-being-sealed

True, game mechanics. DCS is a great simulator, it is time to put some effort to the game side of it.

I do not agree. The beautiful of DCS is that it is a study sim. We already have necessary compromises, since development times can't be infinite and you have to set an acceptable level of approximation. I'm ok with these compromises, since I'm aware that DCS is a game. But the depth of DCS is that it tries to teach you something, even if just in theory and even if it's a game. If you want more simplified or playful games, there is a wide choice and nothing prevents you to play both DCS and one of these simplified games (for instance, FC3 is one of these games and - guess what? - it's already inside DCS!).

I do not agree. The beautiful of DCS is that it is a study sim. We already have necessary compromises, since development times can't be infinite and you have to set an acceptable level of approximation. I'm ok with these compromises, since I'm aware that DCS is a game. But the depth of DCS is that it tries to teach you something, even if just in theory and even if it's a game. If you want more simplified or playful games, there is a wide choice and nothing prevents you to play both DCS and one of these simplified games (for instance, FC3 is one of these games and - guess what? - it's already inside DCS!).

I believe the beauty of DCS is that it’s still in its infancy, there is so much room for growth in the GAME. Believe it or not but majority of the planes we have if not all aren’t 100% complete. Many planes have sections and functions still classified. I mean you say u can accept compromises in one sentence, and then the next you say you can’t accept any and we should go play another game. We got the damn F-18 and I’m POSITIVE some parts of the plane are still classified. This is a sim, and even other study level sims aren’t 100%. If you really want to learn these aircraft and they’re systems. Go fly them in real life. I’m completely fine with u not wanting the F-117 and that’s completely acceptable to me, everyone has opinions and that’s ok. It’s just the fact that other modules have made compromises too.

I think from time to time the community is obligated to create a wishlist entry for the iconic f-117.

it's mission profile is obviously not the most interesting of all, but you could say that about other modules too. also on the other hand it is the only "modern" "bomber" aircraft that would fit well into the scale of dcs map sizes.

but all this arguments are boring: just look at it. don't you want to learn to fly it? don't you want to try to keep in in the air with a flight control malfunction? don't you want to glide above iraki radar undetected? don't you want to get targeted by some smart-ass serbians, who figured out your vulnerability?

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3337089&postcount=7

Lets talk details

- No radios, antennas are stowed, radio comms are garble.

- No RWR

- No chaff/flare

- Flying at night so they do not see you (how many servers are set to night?)

- ~ 4g max

- ~.75 mach max

line edited- under power (at Holloman AFB, with one GBU-10/27 and 10K fuel took almost all runway to take off) Each engine only puts out 20k lbs of thrust. The aircraft empty weight is 30k+ average fuel 10k and 4k of bombs. So around 44k combat load on average.

- If aircraft departs flight, there is not recovery except ejecting. Stall, same.

Take off, straight level to the target, press pickle button when you suppose to, wait until impact and straight and level until line for ILS landing. Clouds or smoke can't bomb.

 

Not sure it would be fun at all.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=3339074&postcount=45

Is stealth implemented in DCS at all?

Yes. Unless something has changed, the F-117 is quite tricky to catch as a Flanker. At least without EWR. Different radars before differently against stealth in DCS. I don't think EWR loses any detection range against the F-117 at all. SAM's might be similar. Player aircraft have a hard time finding the F-117 though.

Well, at least you could simulate the aerodynamics of it in real time... on an old smartphone, because i think it is safe to say, that it is aerodynamically the crudest aircfraft ever produced in numbers...

It could actually be the opposite. Less aerodynamic shapes are harder to predict the performance of because flow separation, turbulence, and shockfronts are all less well behaved and predictable than laminar flow.

As for the module itself, I agree it would be a good addition to DCS if modeled accurately.

The F-117 would be interesting and cool to have in DCS but I am not sure all of its systems have been fully de-classified.

The F-117As DESIGN is what was classified...With few exceptions, they were literally built with off the shelf components.

"To lower development costs, the avionics, fly-by-wire systems, and other parts were derived from the General Dynamics F-16 Fighting Falcon, McDonnell Douglas F/A-18 Hornet and McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle. The parts were originally described as spares on budgets for these aircraft, to keep the F-117 project secret."

The parts that were more classified, the INS, Targeting system etc can easily be simulated without compromising any secret information. As far as stealth...again, it is easier to simulate stealth in a computer game than it is to create it in real life.

The problem will be accurately finding out just how stealthy it is. I'm willing to bet that will remain classified for a long time. ED could guess but it would probably be below their threshold of fidelity.

I've been hearing this MAC thing, I must be missing something but I have no clue what it means lol

Yes. Unless something has changed, the F-117 is quite tricky to catch as a Flanker. At least without EWR. Different radars before differently against stealth in DCS. I don't think EWR loses any detection range against the F-117 at all. SAM's might be similar. Player aircraft have a hard time finding the F-117 though.

 

 

 

It could actually be the opposite. Less aerodynamic shapes are harder to predict the performance of because flow separation, turbulence, and shockfronts are all less well behaved and predictable than laminar flow.

 

 

As for the module itself, I agree it would be a good addition to DCS if modeled accurately.

Interesting tidbit on that... in the days when it was created (late 70s!) they realized it was more computationally feasible to engineer a weird slab-sided shape to be able to fly than it would be to make something smooth and curvy and aerodynamic to be stealthy.

I didn't realize it had no RWR, did some searching real quick to confirm that. Microprose F-19 and F-117 were my into into combat flight sims, in those you had a cool dynamic RWR system that showed your current relative RCS based on flight attitude and plotted the enemy signal strengths on it. While looking for that I found this fun story about the bad cockpit ergonomics:

The jet was an ergonomic nightmare as it was originally designed, and the guys who took it to downtown Baghdad on the first night of the war in Jan '91 got to experience some of this. Don't know if I've related this or not before here, but I'll do so only because it's applicable to what I bring up here.

 

When I was in training for the F-117, one of our civilian instructors....Mr Klaus Klause related a story of how ergonomics slowly but surely came to be for this jet. First night of Desert Storm in '91, he was one of the first wave of F-117s going into Baghdad to hit the command centers located deeper than the radar sites on the border the Army AH-64s had hit at almost the same time. It wasn't really known at that time if stealth technology actually worked, as it had never been tested in real-world combat. The F-117, being slapped together from miscellaneous odds and ends from the A-10 (cockpit), F-15A (gear/components), F-16A (FBW) and F/A-18A (engines), it wasn't very ergonomically friendly in the cockpit in a number of ways. As Klause is getting over Baghdad, the AAA that was filling the air in a general barrage fashion starts immediately shifting in his direction, as if it's tracking him. So he begins to slightly change course (which is not recommended for a number of reasons), and the AAA keeps tracking him, with airbursts going off all around him. Finally he really starts maneuvering (to hell with not recommended), thinking "this stealth crap is bullshat, Lockheed the lowest bidder" and other choice thoughts, finds his target, drops his bombs and gets the literal hell out of there.

 

Crossing outbound to friendly territory to the south, he's getting his systems back on-line, Fencing out, and notices that his position (nav) lights are still on and thats how the gunners were seeing him: visually. Back then in the 117, there were 5 different switches controlling 5 different external lighting systems, located in 5 completely separate places in the cockpit. On fence-in, he'd forgotten the position lights switch. A few years later, the USAF installed a single "all external lights- extinguish" switch on the left wall panel for ergonomic sake, aptly named the "Klaus switch".

Lets talk details

- No radios, antennas are stowed, radio comms are garble.

- No RWR

- No chaff/flare

- Flying at night so they do not see you (how many servers are set to night?)

- ~ 4g max

- ~.75 mach max

line edited- under power (at Holloman AFB, with one GBU-10/27 and 10K fuel took almost all runway to take off) Each engine only puts out 20k lbs of thrust. The aircraft empty weight is 30k+ average fuel 10k and 4k of bombs. So around 44k combat load on average.

- If aircraft departs flight, there is not recovery except ejecting. Stall, same.

Take off, straight level to the target, press pickle button when you suppose to, wait until impact and straight and level until line for ILS landing. Clouds or smoke can't bomb.

 

Not sure it would be fun at all.

If you only play air-quake, then you'll probably not get much from it. I agree, that the mission profile is not the most interesting, but the other "shortcomings" you mention, would maybe even make it more interesting to some of us...

For me, that would also be the reason to only be interested in a full-fidelity version. A Mac version would only put more focus on the mission profile, which would not be the biggest selling point, at least for me that is...

Well, at least you could simulate the aerodynamics of it in real time... on an old smartphone, because i think it is safe to say, that it is aerodynamically the crudest aircfraft ever produced in numbers...

It could actually be the opposite. Less aerodynamic shapes are harder to predict the performance of because flow separation, turbulence, and shockfronts are all less well behaved and predictable than laminar flow.

You are probably right.

I have always wanted a module of the F-117A,just for Nostalgia, i played Microprose F-19 & F-117 , im sure in some Campign there could be a multijet option to be able to complete the mission in either an A-10Ca, Harrier, F-117A or a F-18C. It would be fun to complete a Campaign with a choice of different jets!

A few years later, the USAF installed a single "all external lights- extinguish" switch on the left wall panel for ergonomic sake, aptly named the "Klaus switch".

Is on the throttle like the A-10 pinky switch. It also uses the CDU from the A-10. The CMDI and the EPI from the F/A-18. FLCC from block 5 or 10 F-16, was never updated, so even the flight control check took about 2 to 5 minutes as of 2007 when I stop working on them. The Targeting screen (IRADS display) only displayed video from the FLIR/DLIR and IIRC they took that form F-111.