F-117 Stealth Missions

[Guest IndioBlack]

Since I heard about the prospect of an F-117 being built for SF, I'm curious about whether or not this aircraft could be made to work in an SF Mission environment.

 

1. STEALTH. It is stated that SF supports Stealth by the adjustment of Radar Signature, so at least we can be sure that the aircraft can be made as Stealthy as we like. It effectively means that if the F-117 does't get finished, one could easily take an F-15E for instance and reduce its radar signature to that of the F-117.

 

2. WEAPON DELIVERY. Yes you can lock up a Ground Target with a GBU Paveway from 30,000 feet and get a direct hit from a slant range of 14 miles. I'd never tried this, but someone on the net said it was possible, and I've now confirmed this. Various sources claim the F-117 cruises between 25,000 and 30,000 feet, but there is a suggestion it delivers at medium height - 5,000 feet for instance - but at least we know ours would deliver at maximum height.

 

3. MISSION THREAT. A Typical mission might require that you fly into enemy territory at night, destroy a high value target like a comm building, and then get home safe. With a Stealth Aircraft that is difficult to detect, how could you fail?

In reality, if you flew out of your mission parameters, flew too low, crossed a radar Station or SAM site, flew through a fighter patrol, you'd expect some grief. The question is whether or not that kind of threat can be translated into the SF environment.

 

4. TEST MISSION. I built a simple test mission using the F-15E Strike Eagle as a stand-in for the proposed F-117, targeted with hitting a Comm building in Mizdah, inland Libya. I didn't stealth-up the Eagle, other than reducing the weapon load to two external GBUs, keeping off the afterburners, and switching off the radar. Enemy settings were high and experienced, everything set to hardest. I did not add any new ground objects, assuming that those defaulted in Libya were operational.

I flew in at 30,000, killed the target with a GBU and got home. The RWR showed occasional STs on the perimeter, but even in a high signature Eagle, I did not wake-up any SAMS. It was far too easy.

 

5. QUESTIONS.

 

a) Can enemy ground assets like Radar and Sams be made more efficient? Would placing extra Radar and SAMS, Patrol Boats etc as ground objects increase the threat, or would they just be as unaware as the defaults are?

 

b) Since the GBUs kill from 30,000 ft, is there another weapon that could be used that would force a lower-level attack, other than dumb bombs? Can the GBU efficiency be reduced to force low-level delivery?

 

I haven't tested with enemy air-assets yet, but:

 

c) Is there any way that enemy aircraft could be forced to scramble if you flew near their air-base, or are they controlled by mission time only?

 

d) If you set up an enemy CAP, would they react to an aircraft flying close to their patrol and attack, or would they just fly the racetrack?

 

Any advice or input from experienced Mission Builders would be appreciated. In the interim, I'm going to go back and do more tests.

[Fubar512 1,350]

a) Can enemy ground assets like Radar and Sams be made more efficient? Would placing extra Radar and SAMS, Patrol Boats etc as ground objects increase the threat, or would they just be as unaware as the defaults are?

 

There are several different RADAR "types"available to groundobjects (that classification, btw, includes naval units): Among those types. are Search_and_track, Height_Finder, and Fire_Control units. Height finder and Fire Control units seem to be a bit more prone to acquire a target at range. There is also the matter of search and track signal "Strengths" as well as search and track "time". Both sets of variables can be adjusted to suit one's requirements. Adjusting them is a matter of trial and error.

 

For example, I've found that generally, the shorter the track time, the sooner a system will go "weapons free", and will engage a target at a greater distance. A good example of this is the Nike Hercules. which will often acquire and engage a target anywhere from 60-90 nm range!

 

b) Since the GBUs kill from 30,000 ft, is there another weapon that could be used that would force a lower-level attack, other than dumb bombs? Can the GBU efficiency be reduced to force low-level delivery?

 

GBUs are dependent on the release velocity, release angle, and distance from target. A GBU released at a ground speed of 500 kts from 30,000 feet could conceivably travel 14 miles. There is a reason to avoid a low-level attack run, even in a stealth a/c. and that is heat signature. In tests, I've found that a stealth a/c can be aquired at up to 5,000 feet by a non-emitting SAM unit, such as an SA-9.

 

As we begin modeling modern air-defense units (some of which are capable of acquiring targets using "passive" systems, such as infrared, that don't give the unit's position away), you'll quickly develop an appreciation for whomever made it possible to drop GBUs from 30,000 feet at a range of 14 miles from the target!

 

I haven't tested with enemy air-assets yet, but:

 

c) Is there any way that enemy aircraft could be forced to scramble if you flew near their air-base, or are they controlled by mission time only?

 

Mission time only. Sorry

 

d) If you set up an enemy CAP, would they react to an aircraft flying close to their patrol and attack, or would they just fly the racetrack?

 

If they visually acquire a target, they will generally attack it. The key here is "visual acquisition" (which can be adjusted by extending the target's maximum visual range). We've requested that TK include provisions in a future patch to allow AI aircraft to acquire and target bogeys at long range via radar, or move in to attack them as if they were being vectored by either GCI or an AWACs.

[Guest IndioBlack]

If they visually acquire a target, they will generally attack it. The key here is "visual acquisition" (which can be adjusted by extending the target's maximum visual range). We've requested that TK include provisions in a future patch to allow AI aircraft to acquire and target bogeys at long range via radar, or move in to attack them as if they were being vectored by either GCI or an AWACs.

 

I've found that not to be the case. I flew my F-15E right up the tail-pipe of a MiG-21MF, and then turned away - the flight of two ignored me completely. Believe me, I flew a suicidal flight.

I'm beginning to think that you don't need stealth to avoid being bounced by enemy fighters. Maybe I'm doing something seriously wrong in the mission script, but I cannot provoke them to attack me.

If I cannot get an enemy flight to attack me when I'm clearly a threat and within their visual range, when flying an observable aircraft, then stealth is completely unecessary. Ergo: In a low-signature Stealth aircraft there is nothing I could do wrong to be considered an enemy target and suffer the consequences.

 

Thanks for your other observations. I appreciate your insight.

[Fubar512 1,350]

I've found that not to be the case. I flew my F-15E right up the tail-pipe of a MiG-21MF, and then turned away - the flight of two ignored me completely. Believe me, I flew a suicidal flight.

I'm beginning to think that you don't need stealth to avoid being bounced by enemy fighters. Maybe I'm doing something seriously wrong in the mission script, but I cannot provoke them to attack me.

If I cannot get an enemy flight to attack me when I'm clearly a threat and within their visual range, when flying an observable aircraft, then stealth is completely unecessary. Ergo: In a low-signature Stealth aircraft there is nothing I could do wrong to be considered an enemy target and suffer the consequences.

 

Thanks for your other observations. I appreciate your insight.

 

It absolutely IS the case. You've simply encountered a MiG that was not in the "dogfight" profile. That's a well known SF bug. Nothing will make them attack or evade unless they are flying in "dogfight" mode.

 

Change your aircraft's maxvisibledistance value to something like 15,000 meters, and enemy AC (that are in dogfight mode) will target you with every weapon at their disposal, that has the range to reach you.

[Guest IndioBlack]

It absolutely IS the case. You've simply encountered a MiG that was not in the "dogfight" profile. That's a well known SF bug. Nothing will make them attack or evade unless they are flying in "dogfight" mode.

 

Change your aircraft's maxvisibledistance value to something like 15,000 meters, and enemy AC (that are in dogfight mode) will target you with every weapon at their disposal, that has the range to reach you.

 

Okay, I'm still a newbie, so that well-known bug is completely unknown to me.

 

Please talk me through this, because it will improve my ability to hand-craft missions a thousandfold.

 

Most importantly, how do I put the enemy aircraft in dogfight mode? There is no such Mission role as "Dogfight" in Kreelin's Mission Editor, so where do you fix this.

 

Secondly, please tell me what file contains the aircraft's maxvisibledistance value so that I can experiment with it.

 

This could be so

[+kreelin 2]

Okay, I'm still a newbie, so that well-known bug is completely unknown to me.

 

Most importantly, how do I put the enemy aircraft in dogfight mode? There is no such Mission role as "Dogfight" in Kreelin's Mission Editor, so where do you fix this.

 

Errr... In fact "Dogfight" is not a "Mission Type". It's one of the AI "state". For instance when an AI a/c

is about to take off, its state will be "TAKE OFF". So if you try to shoot it down during this time, it will

not try to evade...

 

Secondly, please tell me what file contains the aircraft's maxvisibledistance value so that I can experiment with it.

 

This could be so

 

In the plane's _DATA.ini

[Guest IndioBlack]

Errr... In fact "Dogfight" is not a "Mission Type". It's one of the AI "state". For instance when an AI a/c

is about to take off, its state will be "TAKE OFF". So if you try to shoot it down during this time, it will

not try to evade...

In the plane's _DATA.ini

 

Hi Kreelin. First of all thanks so much for your mission editor, it has enhanced my enjoyment of this sim enormously.

 

Now I'm looking at a mission that I'm working on in your editor, and what you refer to as "State" appears to be in the "Waypoint Parameters" window. The box where I would select "TAKE OFF" is called "Command". There isn't a Command here for "DOGFIGHT" in the drop down list, but there are things like "ATTACK OBJECT" or "DEFEND OBJECT". Will either of these work, or should I open the Mission text by hand and insert the command "DOGFIGHT"? Normally I would just insert "WAYPOINT", and in this case the enemy AI just don't want to fight back.

[Fubar512 1,350]

Unfortunately, the player has no control over an aircraft's state. "Dogfight mode" (my term for it) lasts only as long as the AI aircraft is armed with A2A weapons, is at it's objective point, and senses that there are enemy aircraft in the area. The is no 'Dogfight" command.

 

You can effect a change in how aggressive an AI is, and the mix of rookies to veterans in a given flight, by applying the "UBER AI" Aircraftobject.ini file (which is available in our downloads section).

[Guest IndioBlack]

Unfortunately, the player has no control over an aircraft's state. "Dogfight mode" (my term for it) lasts only as long as the AI aircraft is armed with A2A weapons, is at it's objective point, and senses that there are enemy aircraft in the area. The is no 'Dogfight" command.

 

You can effect a change in how aggressive an AI is, and the mix of rookies to veterans in a given flight, by applying the "UBER AI" Aircraftobject.ini file (which is available in our downloads section).

 

Okay, I can see this is rapidly going downhill for Stealth now.

 

A few postings back, you said of the AI: "If they visually acquire a target, they will generally attack it." I said that wasn't true and it patently isn't. The AI, conversely to your statement, will NOT GENERALLY attack a player flight. However, in your current post you appear to be suggesting that if certain very specific parameters are met, then the AI will attack.

If I read this correctly, to get the AI to attack, I would have to fly within visual range of them when they have arrived at their objective point.

That seems to be a very narrow window of opportunity for them to waken up and do something aggressive, before being forced to go back to sleep again. So are there any possibilities that we can salvage from this?

 

1. If an AI aircraft reaches it's objective point, will it only go into"dogfight mode" if an enemy flight is within visual range? I'm thinking that's a Yes.

2. Is it possible to create multiple objective points, so that an AI flight can potentially always be ready to go into Dogfight mode? I'll bet that's a No.

3. Why would one need UBER AI, if the parameters for them being in dogfight mode are so narrow? In other words, even if they are UBER AI, unless I fly within visual range of them when they are at their objective point, they're not going to attack anyway. So I'm thinking UBER AI is a slight red herring where Dogfight mode is concerned, even if it is a clever concept per se.

 

My impression is that for 99% of the time, the AI is NOT in Dogfight mode.

The only way I can see to get the AI to guarantee to be in dogfight mode (and this would be absurd for Stealth missions) is:

 

1. Set the player aircraft's maxvisibledistance value in it's Data.ini to something phenomenally high - like theatre wide.

2. Set the enemy aircraft's objective point at the start of the mission.

 

Under those circumstances, presumably the AI would instantly be in Dogfight mode and immediately come for you. Like I say, it would be absurd for Stealth Missions, but it could be used to spice up Tomcat Carrier Ops.

 

[Fubar512 1,350]

Dude,

 

A word of advice; Before you go opining that something is a "Red Herring" (slight or otherwise), it would add at least a modicum of credibility to your statement if you had tried it, and had based your opinion on fact rather than conjecture.

 

 

Cheers.

[Guest IndioBlack]

Dude,

 

A word of advice; Before you go opining that something is a "Red Herring" (slight or otherwise), it would add at least a modicum of credibility to your statement if you had tried it, and had based your opinion on fact rather than conjecture.

Cheers.

 

Like I said, this is rapidly going downhill.

There's no need for you to get upset. I had no intention of hurting you. I appreciate your information and thought we were having an adult discussion.

 

From what I've read above and elsewhere, the UBER AI makes AI pilots more aggressive. The questions have to be:

 

1. Does the UBER AI attack you when they are NOT in dogfight mode?

2. Does the UBER AI increase the "window" in which the AI enter dogfight mode?

 

If the answer to both of the above questions is NO, then the UBER AI becomes a Red Herring in the discussion of how to trigger dogfight mode.

If the answer to either of the above questions is YES, then I believe that it would be worth me testing it out. In which case I would be pleased if you would advise me from where it can be downloaded.

 

[Fubar512 1,350]

Perform a search, both here at the Combat ACE forums and at Sim HQ regarding it's impact on the AI. Better yet, try it, as you can always delete it with no-ill effect afterwords if it does not meet your expectations. Its in our download section: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?download=1219

 

It does not work miracles. Aircraft tasked with strike mission, in a landing pattern, or those tasked with CAP/Intercept/sweep who've exhausted their ordnance, will not attempt to evade. That issue must be resolved by the developer.

 

What it does add, is a more aggressive AI that fights in the vertical plane, has eyes in the "back of its head" (as if under GCI or AWACs control), and conserves its ammo as much as the game engine will currently allow (.3 second bursts, I believe), and seeks out targets of opportunity over a wider sphere.

[Guest IndioBlack]

Perform a search, both here at the Combat ACE forums and at Sim HQ regarding it's impact on the AI. Better yet, try it, as you can always delete it with no-ill effect afterwords if it does not meet your expectations. Its in our download section: http://forum.combatace.com/index.php?download=1219

 

It does not work miracles. Aircraft tasked with strike mission, in a landing pattern, or those tasked with CAP/Intercept/sweep who've exhausted their ordnance, will not attempt to evade. That issue must be resolved by the developer.

 

What it does add, is a more aggressive AI that fights in the vertical plane, has eyes in the "back of its head" (as if under GCI or AWACs control), and conserves its ammo as much as the game engine will currently allow (.3 second bursts, I believe), and seeks out targets of opportunity over a wider sphere.

 

I had performed a search earlier, when I was looking for what you described as "Dogfight mode", which wasn't hugely successful. But I did discover a recent thread in the general WOV/SF section here, where UBER AI was described by yourself in virtually the same manner as you have here. I will be very happy to try it out, because I am intrigued by the statement "seeks out targets of opportunity over a wider sphere", but before I did that, I was trying to resolve some questions to which developers like yourself would already know the answer.

 

I felt that UBER AI was sidetracking the questions that I had previously asked regarding an umodded game, and which remain unanswered:

 

1. If an AI aircraft reaches it's objective point, will it only go into "dogfight mode" if an enemy flight is within visual range? I'm thinking that's a Yes.

2. Is it possible to create multiple objective points, so that an AI flight can potentially always be ready to go into Dogfight mode? I'll bet that's a No.

 

Presumably, since no-one is contradicting my suggested answers, then they are probably correct. Hence, one would need to use a bit of lateral thinking to create missions that would circumvent those problems, and I believe that is possible.

Having got that out of the way, I can now turn my attention to other solutions, one of which appears to be UBER AI.

 

From what I've read of UBER AI, it seems to make the AI fight more aggressively - when it does fight - but nowhere can I see any mention of it making the window for "Dogfight Mode" any wider.

Effectively, my two main questions regarding UBER AI also remain unanswered:

 

1. Does the UBER AI attack you when they are NOT in dogfight mode? (Which I now believe is probably a NO)

2. Does the UBER AI increase the "window" in which the AI enter dogfight mode? (Which I now believe is probably also a NO.)

 

If someone can answer these questions accurately, then that would be extremely useful to me when creating my own missions.

[Fubar512 1,350]

Believe what you want.....and we'll leave it at that.

[+Dave 2,322]

It does not work miracles. Aircraft tasked with strike mission, in a landing pattern, or those tasked with CAP/Intercept/sweep who've exhausted their ordnance, will not attempt to evade. That issue must be resolved by the developer.

 

Just as Fubar said above. Only the dev can change the AI routines....understand?

[Guest IndioBlack]

Just as Fubar said above. Only the dev can change the AI routines....understand?

 

Gosh, I've really rattled some prams, haven't I?

 

I came to this thread because it says: "Discuss the ins & outs of mission building, trade tips and techniques".

 

I've asked several questions which I felt were important to help me understand whether or not it would be possible to create Stealth Mission. The responses have been obscure - requiring clarification; and contradictory - requiring further questions that appear to have upset some of you. Then there was the red herring regarding UBER AI, and the subsequent angry response from the author because I didn't immediately download and try it.

 

You are obviously very protective of SF, which clearly in its original state has a completely dumb AI. Probably for 99% of the time, the enemy aircraft AI is in an "PASSIVE" state (my terminology). They don't see you, they don't react to you, they don't fight you - you might as well not exist. Dogfighting becomes a duck-shoot for the player.

However, for a slim window of time, the AI become "ACTIVE" (my terminology - didn't like DOGFIGHT MODE, Dude - I felt it was terminologically inexact). The ACTIVE period is triggered by the AI arriving at an objective point, loaded with A-A, when within range of your aircraft. I tested this quite exhaustively yesterday: What happens is that they still ignore you to a certain extent, but if you fly in front of them,slow down, and wait a little, they will fire off all their A-A missiles at you, and send a few bullets in your general direction. Even though you are flying straight and level, taking no evasive manouevres, they completely miss. And now that they are out of A-A missiles, they go into PASSIVE mode and fly away.

 

Those are the facts. They could have been explained to me as clearly as this in the first reply, but they weren't. Consequently I kept having to ask for clarification. You guys certainly know your stuff, but you're not very good at explaining it. Now, I know my stuff, and am certainly capable of giving much better answers.

 

What is most unbelievable about this, is that an Administrator and a Moderator both appear to have got very angry at my postings. I thought you guys were supposed to be dispassionate and fair. Understand, Dude?

 

 

[Fubar512 1,350]

If your idea of "intelligent argument" is nothing more than meaningless dribble and thinly-veiled insults, then perhaps it is time for you to move on.

[+Dave 2,322]

Gosh, I've really rattled some prams, haven't I?

 

I came to this thread because it says: "Discuss the ins & outs of mission building, trade tips and techniques".

 

I've asked several questions which I felt were important to help me understand whether or not it would be possible to create Stealth Mission. The responses have been obscure - requiring clarification; and contradictory - requiring further questions that appear to have upset some of you. Then there was the red herring regarding UBER AI, and the subsequent angry response from the author because I didn't immediately download and try it.

 

You are obviously very protective of SF, which clearly in its original state has a completely dumb AI. Probably for 99% of the time, the enemy aircraft AI is in an "PASSIVE" state (my terminology). They don't see you, they don't react to you, they don't fight you - you might as well not exist. Dogfighting becomes a duck-shoot for the player.

However, for a slim window of time, the AI become "ACTIVE" (my terminology - didn't like DOGFIGHT MODE, Dude - I felt it was terminologically inexact). The ACTIVE period is triggered by the AI arriving at an objective point, loaded with A-A, when within range of your aircraft. I tested this quite exhaustively yesterday: What happens is that they still ignore you to a certain extent, but if you fly in front of them,slow down, and wait a little, they will fire off all their A-A missiles at you, and send a few bullets in your general direction. Even though you are flying straight and level, taking no evasive manouevres, they completely miss. And now that they are out of A-A missiles, they go into PASSIVE mode and fly away.

 

Those are the facts. They could have been explained to me as clearly as this in the first reply, but they weren't. Consequently I kept having to ask for clarification. You guys certainly know your stuff, but you're not very good at explaining it. Now, I know my stuff, and am certainly capable of giving much better answers.

 

What is most unbelievable about this, is that an Administrator and a Moderator both appear to have got very angry at my postings. I thought you guys were supposed to be dispassionate and fair. Understand, Dude?

 

 

#1 I didnt get angry at anything. Do not assume that. I just rehashed what fubar said. He explained it in extreme detail. I am not sure what mroe you want.

 

#2 As far as the "dispassionate and fair" this isnt Fox News my friend. Or is that fair and balanced....

 

#3 I am sorry if you didnt get the answer to your question but I think you should give Fubar the credit for taking them time to answer in the amount of detail he did.

 

#4 This is a game and not worth getting upset over everyone.