Simming the stealth fleet; a matter of time?

I'd like to know where you're all at with this philosophy? Is it a "don't do it unless its right"?

 

Because they will never declassify some of the P.bombing systems . Is it a matter of getting working airframes modeled right? They've put model values into simulators before , outside of military control.

 

The big hold up is the ACM ability right? That's what is classified ? That's the faux pais? Just like the "mig-28" in top gun right? It's politics?

 

I'd spend 100 dollars on a flaming cliffs style pack of the f117 , the jsf, or the raptor. Chances are because of acceleration affecting the lower lobes, the raptor will be in and out by 2040.

 

Just day dreaming ...

The f-117, though it looks cool, would be a boring aircraft. It is meant to be flown by a computer, not a pilot. It also has only one mission.

 

A license would still be required, for any of them, regardless whether it was FC level or DCS level.

I'm really close to a boeing defense guy, and my uncle works at nellis, I also live close. If I can be of any assistance to Moscow, just toot my horn. I work in IP and creative consulting, have written and produced to some extent in the past.

 

I'm you're guy on the ground in LA, let me know.

I'm really close to a boeing defense guy, and my uncle works at nellis, I also live close. If I can be of any assistance to Moscow, just toot my horn. I work in IP and creative consulting, have written and produced to some extent in the past.

 

I'm you're guy on the ground in LA, let me know.

 

I'd be careful with how you phrase that. ;)

 

 

Did somebody offer to help Moscow? By coincidence, I have good contacts there! We should get together, да?

I believe from memory that ED aren't releasing anymore FC fidelity modules. ED won't give a third party license to FC level development, so what you are left with is community mods that will mean servers with mod requirements, and we all know how successful that is. So not a question of want, i'm quite sure there is a lot of FC type demand. Not me personally, but I can tell.

 

I'd like to know where you're all at with this philosophy? Is it a "don't do it unless its right"?

 

Because they will never declassify some of the P.bombing systems . Is it a matter of getting working airframes modeled right? They've put model values into simulators before , outside of military control.

 

The big hold up is the ACM ability right? That's what is classified ? That's the faux pais? Just like the "mig-28" in top gun right? It's politics?

 

I'd spend 100 dollars on a flaming cliffs style pack of the f117 , the jsf, or the raptor. Chances are because of acceleration affecting the lower lobes, the raptor will be in and out by 2040.

 

Just day dreaming ...

An F-117 is well within the realms of possibility. It only carried LGB's, the technology of which is already well modeled within DCS. The internal systems i.e. cockpit displays and gauges can easily be found online and how they work. I imagine finding information on it's flight characteristics wouldn't be difficult either but I haven't looked truth be told.

 

The only really classified bit would be it's stealth ability, what it's body / paint were made of. But this isn't information necessary to the creation of a DCS module.

 

As for aircraft like the F-22 and JSF (F-35) all I can say is keep dreaming! More so for the F-35 than the F-22. Maybe we'll see an F-22 modeled in DCS if DCS lasts that long but an F-35? Almost definitely not. Getting data for the F-35 would be the equivalent of drawing blood from a stone.

 

Also for anyone who's interested, 3D view of F-117A cockpit - http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/073/F-117A%20Cockpit.html

The F117 module is already there - you just can't see it! :)

 

WB.

That cockpit is sexy. I just really love this whole experience, buildings a chair and Vr is the culmination of a life long live affair with aviation, astrophysics, and aerial combat history.

 

Just can't get enough. Dcs world, world. I'm gonna gnaw on the bone till the tomcat and the hornet, the harrier, we'll get a viper, Hormuz, Vietnam, the Levantine.

 

Desert storm, eventually.

 

So tasty.

I think that the Air to Ground model probably needs some attention which probably comes with the Hornet.

 

Once they release that, the Third Parties can use the model to create other aircraft whilst funding ED to focus on an A2G model, short of A2A, I think DCS WW2 needs a focus on bombing, once we got air superiority it was all about pounding cities!

Also for anyone who's interested, 3D view of F-117A cockpit - http://www.nmusafvirtualtour.com/media/073/F-117A%20Cockpit.html

 

That cockpit is from a prototype and has very little resemblance to the F-117.

 

 

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/originals/c4/21/6d/c4216dce385023e39c7f6e957d139857.jpg

 

Many things in the pit come from existing aircraft. From F/A-18, you get CMDI, fuel panel, engine panel. You can see the same CDU as in the A-10. The flight control panel is from a block 5 F-16 IIRC (not visible on this pictures). I will try to name a few if I remember.

 

The center screen, is only used for the FLIR/DLIR. Above that is the autopilot screen, similar to the F-16 data entry display. That is what pilots use to fly the aircraft for the most part, AFAIK. Yellow handle on the front left is for emergency landing gear extension. It basically unlocked the landing gear doors. Above that on the second photo, you can see a square switch with yellow and black bordering, that is to blow the tail hook panel and lower the tail hook. At the bottom of the first picture, are the canopy actuators. Grey handle on the second photo, left upper front console, is for the chute.

 

On the first photo, left console (close to the seat) is a black and yellow handle. That is to jettison the canopy. If rotated CCW, and pulled further out, it would eject the pilot. Right wall, is the canopy lock handle.

On the second photo, under the right CMDI, those are to show the trim IIRC.

 

I think I have mention this several time. In combat, there was no maneuvering. If it did, you would be able to target. Plus the aircraft had little G tolerance. So no maneuvering, no chaff, no flares, no ECM. No radio comm. All your antennas where stowed.

Edited March 26, 2017 by mvsgas

I'm really close to a boeing defense guy, and my uncle works at nellis, I also live close. If I can be of any assistance to Moscow, just toot my horn. I work in IP and creative consulting, have written and produced to some extent in the past.

 

I'm you're guy on the ground in LA, let me know.

 

Right, how many beers buys me a tour?

 

Always worth a shot...

 

I'm in Vegas frequently, and always wished I could poke my nose in the door without getting it shot off...

 

Z...

I really hope ED or one of the third parties model the F-117. It has immense historical significance, as the first aircraft designed around stealth. I find there's a lot of mission repetition in any aircraft, including the beloved A-10C, if you fly it enough. Relying on stealth to passively enter a combat zone would offer something no other current module can, and boy would it be tense!

yes, about as tense as riding an a-10 over a bunch of parked trucks

 

you could better replicate the f-117 experience with a screensaver.

Without the nighthawks, aerial attrition would be devastating. It only had a place in infiltration bombing, at night, in that late desert storm kind of threat environment.

 

Today, they are used for surgical strikes on threat airspace , which against insurgencies isn't that needed. But in Iraq, and any modern airspace you need them, for at least 12 hours.

 

I think it would be unique, and offer a piece of aviation history that has never been modeled, and despite what you say in your opinion, is factually a hue tactical game changer.

 

I really can't believe how crass and dismissive some people are being about the f117, simply because it's not a supersonic turn fighter.

 

You're right it's one of the first stealth tactical aircraft, and it entirely revolutionized our threat and aerial doctrine. Also, simpletons thought it was aliens when it was in skunk at nellis and groom. Lol.

 

That alone is awesome, testing scenarios and radars of the domestic historical airspace, set in the late and mid 80s.

Just my opinion, not trying to change yours.

 

Without the nighthawks, aerial attrition would be devastating.

In what way? I do not understand, would you please elaborate.

 

Today, they are used for surgical strikes on threat airspace

Today, they are used for training and testing...I assume since they are retired officially.

 

But in Iraq, and any modern airspace you need them, for at least 12 hours.

Funny to hear this since Israel had no problem attacking Iraq, down town Baghdad, without stealth. F-117 needed Apaches and other assets to create a corridor for them to operate or infiltrate during ODS1.

 

I really can't believe how crass and dismissive some people are being about the f117, simply because it's not a supersonic turn fighter.

I may be crass and dismissive because they where a one trick pony. Hit SAM sites, nope, can't do that. Hit the correct target in Panama, nope, could do that neither.

 

The only way to use use it is to be at a specific time in space and hope no one see you so you can hit a building. Pilot where there to press the pickle button and monitor the autopilot.

 

In contrast, a B-2 can hit 80 targets in one pass, that is impressive...still boring module, but impressive never the less.

u88IjDi5Jhc

Edited March 26, 2017 by mvsgas

Don't think anybody's doubting the historical importance of the aircraft.

 

It just flat out doesn't look like an interesting aircraft to fly. The required mission profile is pretty ho-hum - fly out in the dark, mostly straight and level, drop a couple of bombs. Head home, repeat. I think the novelty would wear off REALLY quickly. Just my 2 cents though, others might find that thrilling.

Sorry, did not mean to posture confrontationally. I will hot seat a day light f16 idf raid, just as quick as I would pay for ANY somewhat accurate representation of a stealth sim.

 

 

I mean, I think maybe you're undervaluing being invisible, but again only my opinion.

B29, with multiplayer gunners over noobmandy anyone?

...I mean, I think maybe you're undervaluing being invisible...

 

But no stealth aircraft is invisible, just hard to see by radar.

Hard to ascertain why people don't see it as a valid module. Surely a gazelle, an L39, a hawk etc, are no more valid. I would argue the F117 was of greater significance than those. (I enjoy those modules by the way).

 

Also, it offers a mission profile we don't currently have, nor has been correctly modelled in any other sim. I'm sure the mission profile won't excite everyone, I mean I just purchased the A-10 a couple of weeks ago, because it doesn't particularly interest me. I'm still enjoying the systems, even if the flying isn't my cup of tea.

 

I don't see a reason to devalue the idea of a F117 module, especially if the data is available to correctly model it.

 

We like planes, right guys?

I guess I should correct and explain myself.

I don't cared if a module is built. I am not trying to change no one's opinion. Not trying to prevent it. Hell, I would buy a F-117 module so I can crash the aircraft over and over. Just trying to share my very limited knowledge on the subject.

I guess I should correct and explain myself.

I don't cared if a module is built. I am not trying to change no one's opinion. Not trying to prevent it. Hell, I would buy a F-117 module so I can crash the aircraft over and over. Just trying to share my very limited knowledge on the subject.

 

Absolutely, sorry, I wasn't targeting anyone in particular :)

 

I was just tapping into a general polarization when the F-117 is mentioned. Some people think it would be a great addition, then some almost defend a reason not to have it. Perhaps it's because of the limited mission profile, perhaps its the lack of a gun, stealth, or it's inherent instability. Not sure what it is exactly, especially when we all love airplanes.

my point isn't that an f-117 module shouldnt be developed, as i love it as much as any other aircraft, but that anyone who believes the experience of flying it to feel somehow perceptibly "stealthy" ought to temper their expectations with a healthy dose of research.

 

its already quite possible to get a taste of what stealth feels like in the current mp arena with crude radar coverage and poor search and sa skills of your average dcs player.

Edited March 23, 2017 by probad

my point isn't that an f-117 module shouldnt be developed, as i love it as much as any other aircraft, but that anyone who believes the experience of flying it to feel somehow perceptibly "stealthy" ought to temper their expectations with a healthy dose of research.

 

its already quite possible to get a taste of what stealth feels like in the current mp arena with crude radar coverage and poor search and sa skills of your average dcs player.

 

I can't agree with that. Rolling into SAM territory at night, in a blacked out spaceship, with no ability to run, manoeuvre, or engage anything other than your target. With no escort and no comms. Whilst getting close enough to drop an LGB. Then get out again. I think that's a unique experience, to me at least. I'm sure you could replicate this with another current module to an extent, but it's a freaking 117! :)