Another F-117 thread (sorry!)

[Pikey]

To this day I can't understand the mission role of the Nighthawk. I understand the plane is painted black and looks an odd shape, but that seems all it has going for it!

 

In DCS a fast tactical bomber would likely be more popular. An aardvark sits in a good space in general. If only a Lancer were able to be done, that would knock off people's socks.

 

I realise this thread is trying to garner positive opinion, the elements of radar and ECM aren't really fully developed enough in DCS to rely on the Nighthawks early strengths and it would end up all on it's own in the sim for a long time. It makes the A-10C look like a fighter jet, I've had a few kills on Blue Flag with one and never felt bad about turning hot and warming the seekers at a spike. I'm not even sure I could manage a collision with an F-117A.

[Lixma 06]

[ATTACH]175008[/ATTACH]

 

ouch!

 

:D

[Airj247]

You have mention this several time so I would like to ask a few things. I am honestly asking and not trying to be a smart ass of diminish you opinion.

 

- Since it has been declassified for 4 years now, do we have any links to actual manuals that are not 25 years old? It looks like the link you provided where for incomplete manuals from 1992.

 

 

Lets break down system by systems, starting from the basics. Flight controls;

- So how do they work?

- Control surfaces on the wing, are the "flaperons" ? "elevons"?

- Are the vertical tails used as Rudders or "elevons"?

- How does the aircraft know AOA, side slip?

- What hydraulic system drive the control surfaces?

- What are the back ups?

- Does it use flaps? Speedbrakes?

 

It is declassified, so we should be able to find this basic stuff right?

 

I'm just a guy in his basement, if I had the money or the capability to make a plane for DCS, of course I would be interested in making a module for DCS. I'm no F-117 expert and I'm going if stuff I've found. I would assume since you worked in the airplane you would know all these questions you asked. So saying "I'm not being a smart ass." Yes you are trying to be a smart ass and down play my comments. I am no military aviation expert. I was just going off BASIC info I have found online. And I don't doubt the manuals from 1992 have all those answers if you were to read them.

 

Saying it's a one trick pony your being very generalistic, but when it comes to other planes you want to be specific in its roles. The CE2 of course you can fly an air show with it but so can you do that with the F-117. And guess what, you can race others as well with the F-117. So if you want to be so specific, the F-117 isn't a one trick pony.

[will-]

Would rather have a f-117 then another CCIP/RP, rocket, simple A/A radar copy and paste aircraft we already have from the 60's, 50's...

[blkspade]

The problem with the F-117 in DCS, if you're trying to be realistic, is that its only use would be for disabling ground radars in an IADS network to open the door for other strikers and CAP/escort flights. And to do so completely uncontested. I personally find air to ground pretty boring already, where the greatest challenge comes from spotting targets due to engine limitations more than game play elements, or from actively doing things wrong. Online at least there is always the risk of being intercepted by CAP, but most strikers get frustrated being shot down by fighters.

[mvsgas]

I'm just a guy in his basement, if I had the money or the capability to make a plane for DCS, of course I would be interested in making a module for DCS. I'm no F-117 expert and I'm going if stuff I've found. I would assume since you worked in the airplane you would know all these questions you asked. So saying "I'm not being a smart ass." Yes you are trying to be a smart ass and down play my comments. I am no military aviation expert. I was just going off BASIC info I have found online. And I don't doubt the manuals from 1992 have all those answers if you were to read them.

 

Saying it's a one trick pony your being very generalistic, but when it comes to other planes you want to be specific in its roles. The CE2 of course you can fly an air show with it but so can you do that with the F-117. And guess what, you can race others as well with the F-117. So if you want to be so specific, the F-117 isn't a one trick pony.

So, no links to relevant manuals or information and no info on one of basic systems? ok thanks.

 

The problem with the F-117 in DCS, if you're trying to be realistic, is that its only use would be for disabling ground radars in an IADS network to open the door for other strikers and CAP/escort flights.

This not a missions the F-117 could do. Aircraft like the EA-6 or the EF-111 together with aircraft like the F-4G or the F-16C Block 30/32 (later updated Blocks) would do that missions and assist aircraft like the F-117 attack targets. AFAIK, and I am no expert, F-117 would attack Command and Control installations while other aircraft attack bridges, road, airfields etc.

 

One of its many problems is the capability of the downward looking infra red (DLIR). Many aircraft, after releasing a LGB, will do a sharp turn to maintain the proper field of view (FOV) for the laser. If the bomb does not see enough laser reflection it won't guide. So aircraft do this sharp turn to stay pointing the laser on the same side the bomb is coming from.

F-117, DLIR FOV is not very large to either side, so it has to be at a specific altitude and speed so the bomb hits the target at a specific time and hope it provides enough laser reflection for the bomb to see...or so I was told by pilots when I ask but they could have told me anything, I have no way to prove it or verify it.

 

Another was the power, Empty F-117 weight was around 30k lbs. Add fuel and weapons, How much power does a non afterburner version of the F404 has?

 

Visibility, You can see in front and to the side, if someone was behind you, there no mirror in the cockpit I remember.

 

Communication, you could not use the radios if the antennas where stowed. I remember on my first engine run, I was trying to contact maintenance operations center (MOC) a couple of hundred meter away, and they where not responding, finally my instructor told me to extend my antennas..oops, forgot that and it work like a charm.

 

I wish Bunyap was still around. AFAIK, he used to work them and has a way more constructive and eloquent opinion on the aircraft that could ever have.

 

Hopefully, someone with actual knowledge on the aircraft can at least let us know where to find relevant material so if someone decides to make a module they have factual information unlike me.

[Airj247]

So, no links to relevant manuals or information and no info on one of basic systems? ok thanks.

 

 

This not a missions the F-117 could do. Aircraft like the EA-6 or the EF-111 together with aircraft like the F-4G or the F-16C Block 30/32 (later updated Blocks) would do that missions and assist aircraft like the F-117 attack targets. AFAIK, and I am no expert, F-117 would attack Command and Control installations while other aircraft attack bridges, road, airfields etc.

 

One of its many problems is the capability of the downward looking infra red (DLIR). Many aircraft, after releasing a LGB, will do a sharp turn to maintain the proper field of view (FOV) for the laser. If the bomb does not see enough laser reflection it won't guide. So aircraft do this sharp turn to stay pointing the laser on the same side the bomb is coming from.

F-117, DLIR FOV is not very large to either side, so it has to be at a specific altitude and speed so the bomb hits the target at a specific time and hope it provides enough laser reflection for the bomb to see...or so I was told by pilots when I ask but they could have told me anything, I have no way to prove it or verify it.

 

Another was the power, Empty F-117 weight was around 30k lbs. Add fuel and weapons, How much power does a non afterburner version of the F404 has?

 

Visibility, You can see in front and to the side, if someone was behind you, there no mirror in the cockpit I remember.

 

Communication, you could not use the radios if the antennas where stowed. I remember on my first engine run, I was trying to contact maintenance operations center (MOC) a couple of hundred meter away, and they where not responding, finally my instructor told me to extend my antennas..oops, forgot that and it work like a charm.

 

I wish Bunyap was still around. AFAIK, he used to work them and has a way more constructive and eloquent opinion on the aircraft that could ever have.

 

Hopefully, someone with actual knowledge on the aircraft can at least let us know where to find relevant material so if someone decides to make a module they have factual information unlike me.

 

I don't know what you have against the plane but that's none of my business, but attacking me and treating ME like I'm an idiot cause I like a certain plane is a little unfair. I respect your opinion of the plane enough not to try and make you look idiotic in front of others or attack you. For goodness sake we all here like aviation. Of course the F-117 has limitations, that's to be expected. (I've said that so much) I never intended on trying to argue with you or downplay your knowledge of the aircraft. A little ounce of respect is all I ask. I don't understand why you're treating me as if I'm a villain.

 

When you say no radios, the plane has radios to use, but when flown over enemy area its all silent to avoid detection (from what I've read through manuals and other sources)

 

Reading through the manuals in the link I provided, they do give a lot of information on the systems of which you asked in a previous post (I think). Reading through the manual I'm discovering things about the plane I didn't even know!

Edited December 28, 2017 by Airj247

[Airj247]

nvm don't read this I messed up (if anyone can delete this plz go right ahead)

[blkspade]

So, no links to relevant manuals or information and no info on one of basic systems? ok thanks.

 

 

This not a missions the F-117 could do. Aircraft like the EA-6 or the EF-111 together with aircraft like the F-4G or the F-16C Block 30/32 (later updated Blocks) would do that missions and assist aircraft like the F-117 attack targets. AFAIK, and I am no expert, F-117 would attack Command and Control installations while other aircraft attack bridges, road, airfields etc.

 

One of its many problems is the capability of the downward looking infra red (DLIR). Many aircraft, after releasing a LGB, will do a sharp turn to maintain the proper field of view (FOV) for the laser. If the bomb does not see enough laser reflection it won't guide. So aircraft do this sharp turn to stay pointing the laser on the same side the bomb is coming from.

F-117, DLIR FOV is not very large to either side, so it has to be at a specific altitude and speed so the bomb hits the target at a specific time and hope it provides enough laser reflection for the bomb to see...or so I was told by pilots when I ask but they could have told me anything, I have no way to prove it or verify it.

 

Another was the power, Empty F-117 weight was around 30k lbs. Add fuel and weapons, How much power does a non afterburner version of the F404 has?

 

Visibility, You can see in front and to the side, if someone was behind you, there no mirror in the cockpit I remember.

 

Communication, you could not use the radios if the antennas where stowed. I remember on my first engine run, I was trying to contact maintenance operations center (MOC) a couple of hundred meter away, and they where not responding, finally my instructor told me to extend my antennas..oops, forgot that and it work like a charm.

 

I wish Bunyap was still around. AFAIK, he used to work them and has a way more constructive and eloquent opinion on the aircraft that could ever have.

 

Hopefully, someone with actual knowledge on the aircraft can at least let us know where to find relevant material so if someone decides to make a module they have factual information unlike me.

 

It's literally what they were used for in the opening night of Operation Desert Storm, and subsequent attacks. The Radar sites could not detect them while they dropped LGBs on them. They paved the way for basically all non-stealth aircraft.

[blkspade]

https://www.f-117a.com/Missions.html

[mvsgas]

https://www.f-117a.com/Missions.html

 

From your link

Night 1, Wave One

At 12:22 AM, the 415th TFS launched F-117As against a combinedintegratedoperations center/ground control intercept site at Nukhayb, two airdefense control sector headquarters, and the Iraqi Air Force Headquartersin Bagdad, as well as numerous other targets that included radarfacilities, telephone centers in Bagdad, and other targets of highpriority.

It does say radar facilities, but which ones? Perhaps command and control?

 

I guess I was wrong.

[Airj247]

You have mention this several time so I would like to ask a few things. I am honestly asking and not trying to be a smart ass of diminish you opinion.

 

- Since it has been declassified for 4 years now, do we have any links to actual manuals that are not 25 years old? It looks like the link you provided where for incomplete manuals from 1992.

 

 

Lets break down system by systems, starting from the basics. Flight controls;

- So how do they work?

- Control surfaces on the wing, are the "flaperons" ? "elevons"?

- Are the vertical tails used as Rudders or "elevons"?

- How does the aircraft know AOA, side slip?

- What hydraulic system drive the control surfaces?

- What are the back ups?

- Does it use flaps? Speedbrakes?

 

It is declassified, so we should be able to find this basic stuff right?

 

I have now looked over the manual, (since I got time now)

 

I'm going to answer all your questions in short, there is too much info to type, I can affirm it does contain useful info. I'll answer in the order you asked.

 

1)Flight controls;- So how do they work? Well that's pretty vague but generally the aircraft uses a Fly-by-wire system using the flight controls hydraulic system.

 

2)Control surfaces on the wing, are the "flaperons" ? "elevons"? The manual descrives them as elevons as they control pitch and roll.

 

3)Are the vertical tails used as Rudders or "elevons"? The manual describes them as used only for directional control.

 

4)How does the aircraft know AOA, side slip? Using those four probes at the front of the aircraft, sensors send info to the FLCC which then uses that to know the current AOA nad side slip.

 

5)What hydraulic system drive the control surfaces? There are two hydraulic pumps, powered by the engines (in short, its pretty lengthy.)

 

6)What are the back ups? This is really vague, but what I found interesting is that besides the primary mechanical quadruple system, there is no mechanical backup flight control system. (pretty vague question so I just assumed)

 

7)Does it use flaps? Speedbrakes? Nope

 

All these answers were found using this link to the manuals (possibly incomplete I am no expert) http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/lockheed/f-117nighthawk.html

Edited December 28, 2017 by Airj247

[sideshow]

I'm in. Personally, I think the deep strike mission is underrated in terms of fun. The fun is the ingress and the egress, and dropping the payload is just the midpoint.

 

Tactical navigation (particularly radar) is fun, and low level TACNAV in weather is more white-knuckle than dogfighting a Su-27 (after all, the Pk of a mountain is 1.0). I would get the 117 as a module (yeah, it's not low level, but that was an example).

 

I feel like you described the old Microprose Tornado sim to a, "T." I spent so much time on that back in the day. Thats my idea of a fun aircraft to carry out deep strike missions.

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by sideshow

[mvsgas]

I have now looked over the manual, (since I got time now)

 

I'm going to answer all your questions in short, there is too much info to type, I can affirm it does contain useful info. I'll answer in the order you asked.

 

1)Flight controls;- So how do they work? Well that's pretty vague but generally the aircraft uses a Fly-by-wire system using the flight controls hydraulic system.

 

2)Control surfaces on the wing, are the "flaperons" ? "elevons"? The manual descrives them as elevons as they control pitch and roll.

 

3)Are the vertical tails used as Rudders or "elevons"? The manual describes them as used only for directional control.

 

4)How does the aircraft know AOA, side slip? Using those four probes at the front of the aircraft, sensors send info to the FLCC which then uses that to know the current AOA nad side slip.

 

5)What hydraulic system drive the control surfaces? There are two hydraulic pumps, powered by the engines (in short, its pretty lengthy.)

 

6)What are the back ups? This is really vague, but what I found interesting is that besides the primary mechanical quadruple system, there is no mechanical backup flight control system. (pretty vague question so I just assumed)

 

7)Does it use flaps? Speedbrakes? Nope

 

All these answers were found using this link to the manuals (possibly incomplete I am no expert) http://www.avialogs.com/index.php/en/aircraft/usa/lockheed/f-117nighthawk.html

 

1) Ok so now we all know that there is a flight control hydraulic (No2) system and is FBW

2) Now we all know what the control surfaces on the wing do and their terminology

3) Not sure what that means

4) So, unlike aircraft like the F-16, this air pressure go directly to the FLCC and no Air data computer?

So if anyone finds any documents that talk about the flight characteristics of this aircraft, we know more about the terminology.

5) Not lengthy at all: 2 pumps, one on each AMAD for the this system ( more when we get into the hydraulics), the main pump for the flight control hydraulic system is on the left AMAD, backup is on the right AMAD.

6) Agreed it was vague ( not intentionally) I do not remember the back ups for this older F-16 derived FBW. On block 40 and above F-16 this is called literary Digital backup, I do not remember what was called in the F-117. Additionally, if both generator fail or all other hydraulic pumps (4total, 2 for each hydraulic system But I can't remember if system 1 help with flight control surfaces) The emergency power unit could take over. The very same EPU of a F-16, but instead of using Hydrazine it would use ECS air form the APU driven compressor. Al tho at a limited fluid rate.

 

But the question remains, is any of it relevant to the aircraft by the time it was retired? Where there no updates to the flight control system? Or are you requesting the 1992 version? I do not know.

Edited December 28, 2017 by mvsgas

[hughlb]

I think the F-117 shows the divide between the combat flight sim community and civil sim community, in a sense. The trigger seems to be putting resources into an aircraft that evades rather than embraces conflict. Look at the A-10, the drawcard is the weapons platform, right? - Point is, many people seem interested in what something can do upon reaching its waypoint. I would argue the 117 is about the journey to get there. I think there’s also some animosity about it’s historical significance or effectiveness - fair arguments to be had there, but those arguments are not 117 exclusive, and I don’t think it would feel at all out of place in the large and diverse DCS stable.

[Phantom453]

If ED or one of the Third Parties took the time and had the information required to make one to the usual ED standards, I'd certainly buy it!

 

Not everyone's cup of tea I know and understand why, but certainly something different to try.

 

DCS is a sandbox - bring what you want.

[probad]

anyone who thinks this airplane would be remotely entertaining to operate knows nothing about it.

 

ironic that theres so much resistance to general aviation and trainers -- maligned for having few systems and 'lesser' performance, yet so many contrived arguments in favor of the f-117, an aircraft that's truly lacking in both systems operation and flight performance.

you all are just enamored with the superficial aspects of the airplane. sad. it's a waste to model this thing to dcs standards when all you guys really care about is its shape and your internal fantasy about being "stealthy", which, no, will not save you from eating hot dookie the way you imagine it will.

Edited December 29, 2017 by BIGNEWY
1.2

[Buzzles]

Even though I think it's not a great module for DCS, I've had this on my watch list for ages so I thought I'd share:

 

oyygByo3d_4

 

26:00 is interesting, a very brief mention from the pilots what it was like to fly.

[frixon28]

anyone who thinks this airplane would be remotely entertaining to operate knows nothing about it.

 

What? I think it would be interesting and I know some general stuff about the F-117, just like dozens of other members on the forum. Do you know something we do not know? I never knew someone had the power to decided what is and isn't fun for others...

Fun is an opinion, this argument can apply to any bomber. Example DCS B-17, flying in formation for hours and trying to maintain formation while your crew does the bombing (pulling a lever). How fun (sarcasm). And to some people that is fun, and good for them! Just like the F-117 simulation would be fun for some people, and not fun for you.

 

ironic that theres so much resistance to general aviation and trainers -- maligned for having few systems and 'lesser' performance, yet so many contrived arguments in favor of the f-117, an aircraft that's truly lacking in both systems operation and flight performance.

This is my opinion, but I don't think the resistance to trainers is because of their fewer systems, I think its because we have so many of the buggers! Hawk,L-39,C-101 all are very similar in their capabilities. The F-117 was made to fulfill its task, and history proved it to be very successful. It would be the most unique DCS aircraft to this date.

you all are just enamored with the superficial aspects of the airplane. sad. it's a waste to model this thing to dcs standards when all you guys really care about is its shape and your internal fantasy about being "stealthy", which, no, will not save you from eating hot dookie the way you imagine it will.

 

Umn, I sure am not. And neither are hundreds of other people who want to see this aircraft. I guess I just fantasize about simulate flying a stealth aircraft in DCS, is that a problem with you? People like DCS modules because of many reasons, it is their choice and we are all unique in this term. A waste to model this no, not really.

 

Though saying the F-117 won't save me from SAM sites is wrong, just look at real life where the F-117 was extremely successful in both Gulf Wars in its intended roles (yes 1 got shot down in Serbia we all know)

[mvsgas]

Even though I think it's not a great module for DCS, I've had this on my watch list for ages so I thought I'd share:

 

oyygByo3d_4

 

26:00 is interesting, a very brief mention from the pilots what it was like to fly.

 

39:05 and on is far more telling on how a mission on the aircraft would be.

- "Very mission planing intensive platform."

- "When you flying it, the autopilot is flying the aircraft. They only thing it's not doing, is guiding the weapons, you have a very short period of time where you are doing you job, the rest of it is letting the aircraft fly"

At 40:41

- You hit a predetermine point that we call and IP, once you cross that point, the aircraft will make a turn or decent to align itself. All does it automatically. You are just systems managing

 

41:29

- Once it make that initial turn into his attack axis, you run through a series of steps, You check for fuel, altitude, time and speed

Some of the things I was talking about earlier. If you do not release the bomb at a precises altitude and speed the bomb might not see enough reflective laser energy to see the target.

 

Here are contradicting opinion of the aircraft handling by two pilots, which is correct?

slYAVymZ99M?start=477

 

The first video mentions a single flight computer, but the second video the pilot mention several computers. Which is correct?

Edited December 29, 2017 by mvsgas

[Pikey]

Going back to "gameplay" which is a reason people might buy a module, DCS's radar modelling is not mature or detailed enough to provide stealth characteristics in a way that would make it fun to play as the actual airframe.

How stealthy was it? We know it could be seen on some radars. Can these then be listed with any accuracy, at what ranges and aspect and altitude? What about airborne radars or IR? How about versus missile radar? We know one hit it. Has any aircraft ever tried to find it in a warzone? It mostly operated with air superiority. On line player versus player would be an unknown and difficult to model sandbox that would likely be very unfullfilling for a virtual f117 pilot. Single player, with air superiority, assuming very little could hit it, would be a matter of where the enemy radars were placed and what type. It would still need to work in concert with SEAD else it's vulnerable. It would boil down to go there, drop bomb, go back. All the danger would be either unknown to you as you flew, or nullified by the mission parameters.

 

Part of the charm of any other module in DCS is that at least you could face incoming fire. Dodging Buks in an A-10C is a really cool experience, the A-10C has armament, manouverability, defensive options, resiliency. Other airframes have speed, or ranged weapons, or low level or all of these.

 

Assuming you could model the systems and everything about the flying of this airframe, you are left with the puzzle of it's main defensive characteristics, which perhaps the Tonopah training range radar operators know about in good detail, but unlikely to really give you any data for public.

 

"Hi USAF, we want the detection distances and radar profiles for the F117 versus all search and tracking radars that you have 'obtained' and we want you to make those public (or provide them privately to a Russian software company specialising in military war simulation) please."

 

Thus it does still boil down to an odd plane, with unimpressive performance, with a single strike mission in quite a niche mission role and not even a good imagination could sandbox their way out of it. We saw A-10C drivers use A-10C's for missions they weren't designed for, they hold up in public play very well. A f117 isn't going to fit in well.

 

Fair enough, it doesn't mean that flying it will not be of interest still, to some, but in terms of what might sell or have wide popularity, there's other options that would attract more.

[nessuno0505]

I agree.

The main pitfall in simulating an f-117 is radar modeling.

All dcs radars are developed to react to "standard" airframes.

Every stealth aircraft uses different strategies to avoid radar tracking and all this should be simulated, both on the airframe and on radars, in all possible situations, and some of this knowledge is still not well known or classified.

I think we can enjoy dcs modern air combat theaters even considering only pre-stealth era aircrafts: airframes such as panavia tornado, f-16, f-111, ah-64, b1-b, dassault rafale, iai kfir, a6 intruder... well I could mention dozens of pre-stealth era aircrafts that would be great to have simulated in dcs, I think we don't need f-117.

Edited December 30, 2017 by nessuno0505

[Buzzles]

I agree.

The main pitfall in simulating an f-117 is radar modeling.

All dcs radars are developed to react to "standard" airframes.

Every stealth aircraft uses different strategies to avoid radar tracking and all this should be simulated, both on the airframe and on radars, in all possible situations, and some of this knowledge is still not well known or classified.

[snip]

 

Well, DCS does have limited support for different RCS values. Check the various [airplane].lua files for the AI versions and you'll see an entry.

 

Whether it's actually used behind the scenes is obviously a different matter.

 

For the F117 considering its main steath tech is its reduced RCS signature...might be doable.

[Kev2go]

This is actually one of the few "bombers" i would actually be interesting in flying in. having some degree of "stealth" or reduced RCS would bring a new aspect to DCS.

 

Its dual engined, and single seat, so no worry with mulicrew and wont exceed the max engine limitation in DCS

Edited March 26, 2019 by Kev2go

[hughlb]

The whole “it wouldn’t be fun because you fly from point A to point B, drop an LGB and return home” is an opinion totally at odds to what many of us enjoy about flight simulation. The entire civ sim community is born out of a love of flying straight and level. Do we have to enjoy air Quake to enjoy DCS? Really? Because that’s not what gets me strapped in every flight. Microprose F-117 was my favourite flight game from my childhood because it was about avoiding conflict not engaging in it, because you knew you were in trouble if you didn’t hide. Like a good thriller, it was all suspense. We also have multirole, air combat and ground pounding really well represented, whereas the F-117 would be a new experience. I really hope it gets a full fidelity module some day.