Stealth Aircraft

[Guest IndioBlack]

Just saw the post below regarding chaff and flares, and wondered if there was some aircraft entry that decided how large its radar signature was, and therefore how easy it was to spot and target with AA or SAMS.

In other words would it be possible to build a stealth fighter that was actually stealthy?

[Fubar512 1,350]

http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cg...;f=121;t=005613

 

Scroll down about halfway down the first page....

Edited September 23, 2005 by Fubar512

[Guest IndioBlack]

http://www.simhq.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cg...;f=121;t=005613

 

Scroll down about halfway down the first page....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's an affirmative then.

 

Did anyone actually finish the F-22, or is it still a work-in-progress?

 

Be nice to get an F-117 eventually.

[Fubar512 1,350]

That's an affirmative then.

 

Did anyone actually finish the F-22, or is it still a work-in-progress?

 

Be nice to get an F-117 eventually.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Both are currently works in progress, both are (for all intents & purposes) invisible to radar in-game.

[Guest IndioBlack]

Both are currently works in progress, both are (for all intents & purposes) invisible to radar in-game.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Awesome news.

When I get the F-117, I shall spend all my time writing missions for it and flying them. I badly miss the old Microprose F-117 Stealth Fighter Sim, which for me has never been surpassed. It's a whole different approach to flying.

My thanks in advance to the guys who are doing this, and thanks to you for letting me know.

[Guest MGonzales]

Awesome news.

When I get the F-117, I shall spend all my time writing missions for it and flying them. I badly miss the old Microprose F-117 Stealth Fighter Sim, which for me has never been surpassed. It's a whole different approach to flying.

My thanks in advance to the guys who are doing this, and thanks to you for letting me know.

 

You and me both, buddy!

 

I know allot of people find the whole idea boring, but I enjoyed the heck out of that sim for a long time! Sure, I would occasionally fly the Microprose F-117 with A/A capability (including guns) and Carrier Ops, but usually I'd stick with the more realistic Lockheed version.

 

Nighthawk F-117A Stealth Fighter 2.0 was my first sim until more recently, and I've never forgotten how much I enjoyed using strategy to avoid any confrontations versus looking for a fight with guns and missiles a blazing. When you're deep inside enemy territory, it's scary that you really have no way to defend yourself so you have to be most careful to make sure you're not detected in the night sky, especially once you hit a target.

 

Like you said, it was a different kind of flying and I love having a variety of planes and missions (all things should be possible with Strike Fighters :)).

 

I've kept Jane's USAF just for the F-117 but I long for a Strike Fighters F-117 with controllable FM and more modern graphics. And hopefully one day more realistic avionics (i.e. no A/G radar). Well, I realize that a realistic F-117 would be impossible due to lack of modern avionics support (i.e. FLIR) but I'm sure that's all coming one day. I'll still enjoy the F-117, especially with stealth implemented.

 

I can't wait to fly the F-22 under development too! I'm only now discovering F-22 TAW and let me tell you, I so long for the day when a modern-era Strike Fighters is developed! This wouldn't mean that I would no longer fly F-4's over Vietnam and F-86's over Korea though, the more eras I have to fly in the merrier! But it might mean less time with any other sim, regardless of era. :)

--

 

 

Mark

Edited October 4, 2005 by MGonzales

[Fubar512 1,350]

Mark,

 

Rest assured that the F-117 and F/A-22 will be as realistic as possible, given the constraints imposed upon us by the SF engine. The 117 in particular will have nothing more sophisticated than a FLIR (which probably won't be able to slew around...but that's another story).

 

I've already verified that both models are truely invisible to radar at range.

[Guest MGonzales]

Fubar512, am I to understand that the F-117 is going to have some kind of FLIR feature?!?!

 

Man, this would be FANTASTIC (even a full-screen hack or something)!!!

 

Will this FLIR eventually find its way into the A-10?

 

I understand if you can't elaborate on the FLIR but this sure is good news to me!

 

Can you be more specific on stealth? I don't know how realistic the Microprose sim was (even when flying the Lockheed version of the F-117) but, for example, as soon as you opened your bay doors, you became a lot more detectable, if just for a brief moment. I believe speed and other factors played a part in your detectability as well. Is this kind of stuff even possible with the current SF engine?

 

No matter I guess, as just being stealthy at all is the most important thing. It seems you guys are always pushing the limits of what's currently possible in this sim. :)

--

 

 

Mark

[Fubar512 1,350]

Fubar512, am I to understand that the F-117 is going to have some kind of FLIR feature?!?!

Will this FLIR eventually find its way into the A-10? I understand if you can't elaborate on the FLIR but this sure is good news to me!

 

The FLIR at this point is just a hack I'm working on. It's basic principle is roughly the same as DFang's bomb site, only it presents a "night - sight" sort of an image. It's still a WIP, and I'll release to the community as soon as I verify that it works as it should.

 

Can you be more specific on stealth? I don't know how realistic the Microprose sim was (even when flying the Lockheed version of the F-117) but, for example, as soon as you opened your bay doors, you became a lot more detectable, if just for a brief moment. I believe speed and other factors played a part in your detectability as well. Is this kind of stuff even possible with the current SF engine?

 

At present, Stealth in SF is determined by a fixed RCS (Radar Cross Section) variable, that represents an overall value. There's no provision that I'm aware of to have it fluctuate due to aspect change, and/or due to having bomb bay doors or even landing gear hanging below the AC. I know I'd like to see an RCS value as a variable for weapons (both missiles and bombs), as this would solve at least two issues; AI ships & aircraft being able to identify and engage cruise-missiles and ASMs, and radar reflective ordnance causing an increase in a stealth aircraft's RCS.

[Guest MGonzales]

Fubar512, I haven't tried using DFang's bomb site yet, but I've read posts about it and I've seen the screen shots. Sounds like a great hack to me! :)

--

 

 

Mark

[Guest IndioBlack]

At present, Stealth in SF is determined by a fixed RCS (Radar Cross Section) variable, that represents an overall value. There's no provision that I'm aware of to have it fluctuate due to aspect change, and/or due to having bomb bay doors or even landing gear hanging below the AC. I know I'd like to see an RCS value as a variable for weapons (both missiles and bombs), as this would solve at least two issues; AI ships & aircraft being able to identify and engage cruise-missiles and ASMs, and radar reflective ordnance causing an increase in a stealth aircraft's RCS.

 

I agree with you regarding how great it would be to have the aircraft exhibit variable RCS, but that would just be the icing on the cake.

The really important point about creating a Stealth Aircraft in the Sim is being able to have just enough RCS that if you're in the wrong place at the wrong time, you can be detected. The excitement of the Microprose F-19/F-117 Sims, although they may not have been completely accurate, was that if you flew too near to a Radar Station (Pechenga was a bitch), a SAM site, a flight of enemy aircraft, or at the wrong altitude, you stood a good chance of being picked up and attacked. The fun was in planning a thread-the-needle route that took you around the fixed hazards, and in being prepared to work out new routes on the fly should circumstances change, i.e should a flight of enemy aircraft take-off and accidentally cross your path. What Microprose originally got wrong was the altitude part, where they assumed the real aircraft would need to fly under 500 ft to avoid detection, so if you popped-up, your RCS went ballistic. I believe the F-117 version had a choice of accuracy, where you could fly the real model at it's correct altitude of 30,000 ft without increasing your RCS.

None of the later Sims that featured Stealth did it properly, apart from iF-22, where they tried to advise you not to fly realistically, because they said it would be boring. As if!

TAW failed, because it had you instantly visible to superior Russian Aircraft; the Novalogic Sims treated you like a normal F-16; and Jane's USAF seemed to have you visible to anything at any range.

 

So if you can create a low RCS F-117 for SF, it should be possible to create missions with lots of enemy aircraft flying around, lots of AAA and SAMS near targets, all of which will waken up if you make the mistake of flying too close. However, if you fly the smart route, you should be undetectable.

[Guest MGonzales]

What he said. :)

 

IndioBlack, I hope you share your F-117 missions with the rest of us! :) I'm looking forward to this more than anything else flightsim related right now.

--

 

 

Mark

[JediMaster 451]

I think I enjoyed F-19 far more. Partly because if I remember right, F-117 came out around the time of Falcon 3 and was overshadowed by it. Also, I never liked the Lockheed version because I was used to the F-19/MPS version where you could do AA missions. Like you said, too, it was too easy to tool around all day without getting spotted. Of course, the carrier ops was fun if wildly inaccurate!

 

Favorite mission: bombing Typhoon pens in the Kola peninsula! :)

 

 

 

The Jedi Master

[+allenjb42 4,234]

http://www.simhq.com/simhq3/sims/boards/bb...t=003160#000000

 

My reminiscences on Microprose F-19....

And I though I was the only one that had trouble over Pechenga

[Guest IndioBlack]

What he said. :)

 

IndioBlack, I hope you share your F-117 missions with the rest of us! :) I'm looking forward to this more than anything else flightsim related right now.

--

Mark

 

Sorry but I won't be writing Stealth Missions for the F-117 now, because the SF engine is incapable of supporting them properly. I wrote a full account of why this was the case, but my post has mysteriously disappeared. I shall obviously be next.

This discussion can be continued on the Third Wire forum.

 

[Guest IndioBlack]

Sorry but I won't be writing Stealth Missions for the F-117 now, because the SF engine is incapable of supporting them properly. I wrote a full account of why this was the case, but my post has mysteriously disappeared. I shall obviously be next.

This discussion can be continued on the Third Wire forum.

 

 

Report:

 

Being an avid fan of the Microprose F-117 Stealth Fighter Simulator, I was eagerly awaiting the appearance of the upcoming F-117 for SF.

However, I now have grave reservations about the ability of SF to support anything like the kind of exciting and realistic missions that Microprose were able to create for that aircraft.

 

Much of the information for the real F-117 Stealth Aircraft is still classified, but we get the idea that it cruises at between 25,000 and 30,000 feet, and can launch GBU Paveways with deadly accuracy from those altitudes. Under certain conditions, such as cloud levels interfering with the sensors' ability to sight the target, it may deliver at lower altitudes.

 

Microprose created three versions of the aircraft: An F-19 that relied on Stealth by staying under 500 ft and flying at specific distances beyond radar stations; and an F-117 that came in two flavours - one a continuation of the F-19 flight profile, and one that went for the more realistic high level attack at 30,000 ft.

 

In the latter, which Microprose based on the very latest information they could get their hands on, and a fair amount of conjecture, they modelled an aircraft designed to fly at 30,000 feet into enemy territory, launch guided weapons at a point target and then get home safely. If you flew your waypoints, and the correct flight profile, you were pretty much guaranteed an uneventful flight, but if you strayed off course, flew too near a radar station or wandered into a flight of enemy aircraft, then it could get very uncomfortable indeed.

For those more interested in dogfighting, this was a bit like chess, but then there are an awful lot of us who like chess.

 

So, could the kind of missions, and the mission excitement generated in the Microprose F-117 be emulated in STRIKE FIGHTERS? I decided to try and find out.

 

I wrote a mission featuring the Libyan Terrain: The player's flight would leave Sigonella in Sicily, fly south across the Mediteranean to Libya at 30,000 ft, penetrate inland, loose off a GBU at a Communications Building, and then return home. All this would take place at night.

I placed Radar patrol Boats along the waypoint path across the Med, several extra radar stations and SAM sites in Libya, and a couple of flights of MiG-21s patrolling the Libyan coast. The idea was that the player might accidentally be picked up by any of these threats and then be forced to take evasive action to regain his "invisibility" and continue the mission, much as would happen in the Microprose Sim.

 

Since the Strike Fighters F-117 doesn't exist yet, I elected to use an F-15E Strike Eagle to test the mission. The Eagle is obviously not as stealthy as the F-117, but I could at least gauge the threat level that one would experience. I felt that when it came down to final tweaking, the one area that would need to have more care in adjustment than any other would be the F-117's stealth signature: If you could fly as stupidly as you wanted and never be seen, then for playability, the stealth signature would have to be increased.

 

I loaded the F-15E with two GBU Paveway IIs only, and didn't use afterburners or Radar. Navigation would be accomplished with the waypoint triangles that appear on-screen in "normal" HUD mode, and with the Map.

 

The results were astonishing: Even in an unstealthy Eagle, nobody ever saw me. There was the occasional "ST" showing up on the RWR, but nothing came of it, presumably because SF does not model Radar Stations ordering fighters to scramble and intercept possible enemy flights.

From 30,000 ft I targeted the Primary and comfortably hit bullseye with the Paveway - "mission complete".

Since nobody had noticed me, I did some 500ft low level passes on SAM sites, to see if they were awake, but they weren't. The only active threat was Triple AAA, and only if you flew suicidally close to it.

 

I then tried awakening the MiG flights, but they didn't know I was there either, even when I flew up their tailpipes. As we now know, this is due to a problem with the AI, discussed elsewhere on this site, where for

the majority of the time, they are in a "PASSIVE" state where they don't see you, they don't react to you, they don't fight you - you might as well not exist.

However, for a slim window of time, the AI become "ACTIVE", and this period is triggered by the AI arriving at an objective point, loaded with A-A, when within visible range of your aircraft.

It would be great if we could harness this ACTIVE window to create a threat for the Stealth Pilot, but the parameters are so narrow that the Player would have to actively seek out the enemy flights when they arrive at their specific waypoints to get them to notice him. And why would anyone want to do that?

 

My conclusion is that the use of the upcoming F-117 in STRIKE FIGHTERS will end up being in extremely uneventful, threat-free, easy-to-accomplish missions. The enjoyment will be in the flying of the aircraft, and more akin to flying an F-117 in a Civilian Sim like FS2004 (which I do), rather than in a Combat environment.

 

I look forward to being proved wrong.

 

[Guest IndioBlack]

I transferred to WINGS OVER VIETNAM last night, and whilst dodging SAMS, I got to wondering if maybe this platform would be a much better playground for the F-117. At least in this Sim, if you fly over enemy territory at 30,000 feet, at night, in a standard THUD, you will be seen and killed by SAMS.

 

What I don't know is whether it's the weapons themselves that have better AI, or the game engine.

 

If it's the game engine, then presumably one could import the Libya terrain, and you'd have just as hard a time from SAMS over Libya as you do in Nam. This would add some excitement to an F-117 mission, where you would generally be invisible and invulnerable, unless you did something stupid in flight and departed your flight profile.

 

I'm assuming that WOV has the same potential as SF for importing all add-on aircraft and terrains, so it shouldn't prove too difficult to test out.

 

Any comments or advice?

 

[NelsonP 0]

I have both Strike Fighters and Wings Over Vietnam, and see no difference between them. I think the reason that you see more sam activity in w.o.v is that the terrain itself contains more sam sites.

 

I used to use the drv terain in sfp1 before I got a copy of w.o.v, and that terrain had even more sams and aa guns than w.o.v. It was so bad, that it used to kill my fps and make the game un-playable.

 

Are you setting your aa defenses on hard? That can make a real difference.

 

I spent like a whole week just reading all the sfp1 boards on sim hq, thirdwire, here, at frugals, and it helped a lot.

 

~NPH~

[Guest IndioBlack]

I have both Strike Fighters and Wings Over Vietnam, and see no difference between them. I think the reason that you see more sam activity in w.o.v is that the terrain itself contains more sam sites.

 

 

~NPH~

 

I think you're right.

There's certainly something bizarre in the way these Sims work that's far too complex for me to work out.

 

For instance, because I'd noticed loads of SAM launches in WOV when I flew the THUD, I decided to import a Strike Eagle and see how it coped. Unfortunately, the mission I drew was in the South, so I didn't see any SAM launches. So I went North over Hanoi, looking for trouble and didn't see any SAM launches there either. In fact I flew right down to 100 ft over a SAM, and they were definitely asleep.

So the question is: Was that because SAMs only launch when native aircraft are in the area, or was it because SAMs only launch when there is a mission target in their area?

[NelsonP 0]

I just read about this over the weekend. Somebody figured out that it was due to the sam launchers, or maybe even the sams themselves, having an out of service date before the inservice date of some of the nonstock planes. If my memory's right, I think you have to open up the data files for either the launchers or the missiles, and cahnge the dates.

 

So, you might want to extend the sa2's service dates to 2005 or later. I'll try it myself as soon as I get home from work tonite.

[Guest IndioBlack]

I just read about this over the weekend. Somebody figured out that it was due to the sam launchers, or maybe even the sams themselves, having an out of service date before the inservice date of some of the nonstock planes. If my memory's right, I think you have to open up the data files for either the launchers or the missiles, and cahnge the dates.

 

So, you might want to extend the sa2's service dates to 2005 or later. I'll try it myself as soon as I get home from work tonite.

 

Yes that sounds like a solid solution. Presumably you either alter the SAM service date later, or the Aircraft service date sooner.

 

If this does the trick, then there definitely does seem some possibility that one could use the up-coming F-117 in missions set in the hostile environment provided by Vietnam. The only thing to fine-tune then would be the actual size of the F-117 radar signature. The F-117 authors would probably give it a realistic "ball-bearing size signature, but that could be opened out a little for gameplay purposes to force the player to fly an intelligent route to the target - threading the needle around radar and SAM sites.

 

Thanks for that - things are looking hopeful again.

 

[Guest pdelbarba]

MUST HAVE F-22!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Guest pdelbarba]

for those of you who are hyped about FLIR i think BUFF also has something like it but a little different in cocept. It part of the radar. You can ask him about it.