Want F-117A Nighthawk - high fidelity module

[Cigar Bear]

It's been a long long time since I opined about new aircraft modules, because DCS has met and far exceeded my every expectation with all the current and known future aircraft. 

 

However, since the days of Sid Meier and MicroProse I have always had fun flying the Stealth Fighter or the F-117A Nighthawk.

 

I think this would be a great module!  And the gameplay would a little different from all the other 3rd and 4th gen fighters!

 

CB

[Buzzles]

19 hours ago, Cigar Bear said:

And the gameplay would a little different from all the other 3rd and 4th gen fighters!

Definitely correct on that part as it carries two (2) bombs only.

[jojyrocks]

19 hours ago, Cigar Bear said:

It's been a long long time since I opined about new aircraft modules, because DCS has met and far exceeded my every expectation with all the current and known future aircraft. 

 

However, since the days of Sid Meier and MicroProse I have always had fun flying the Stealth Fighter or the F-117A Nighthawk.

 

I think this would be a great module!  And the gameplay would a little different from all the other 3rd and 4th gen fighters!

 

CB

 

 

Too bad, chance of F-117 happening as a module is next to impossible. It is still reportedly doing study test flights as of present...it has been seen flying.  

[bies]

 

 

"FlyingIron Simulations" - 3rd party doing A-7E Corsair II for tge DCS is also making F-117.

For now F-117 is for a civilian XPlane 11. I hope for DCS also to show it's full potential in a military sim.

 

Just look at their two dev blog Pages:

 

https://flyingironsimulations.com/blogs/news/introducing-flyingiron-f-117-nighthawk

 

https://flyingironsimulations.com/blogs/news/f-117-nighthawk-development-update-1

Edited March 30, 2021 by bies

[Evoman]

Like Joyrocks said the F-117 is still in service as a test bed and has even taken a role as aggressor at some Red flag events. I recommend reading this great article to learn more about it.

 

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/35748/f-117-nighthawks-now-appear-to-be-flying-as-adversaries-in-red-flag-aerial-war-games

[Mars Exulte]

 That's interesting about the aggressor role. Learning to deal with stealth fighters, good idea since we're not ''alone'' anymore.

 

[bies]

5 hours ago, Buzzles said:

Definitely correct on that part as it carries two (2) bombs only.

 

Christen Eagle or Yak-52 don't carry even one bomb. Not even a machinegun. Yet they are still worth the effort of full fidelity simulation.

Many guys want unarmed transport C-130 or even civilian Cessna.

 

 

I'm sure military F-117 would fit DCS and find many customers, me among the first.

This plane was a legend in 1980s and played the crucial role duing Desert Storm air campaign initial phase. Just Cause in Panama 1989, Allied Force in Yugoslavia. Even Iraq and Afganistan.

 

Night flying, laser communication, looking for targets in pitch black using integral FLIR, aerial refueling, tempremental flight characteristics.

 

 

[upyr1]

The Woblin goblin would be awesome  

[Mars Exulte]

2 hours ago, bies said:

I'm sure military F-117 would fit DCS and find many customers, me among the first.

 

  Whether you think it fits or would be cool is largely irrelevant. Stealth technology for aircraft is probably the most closely guarded military secret out there, next to nuclear weaponry. It's not going to happen, period, full stop, no point in pretending otherwise. DCS isn't Xplane.

Edited March 20, 2021 by Mars Exulte

[bies]

On 3/20/2021 at 1:28 AM, Mars Exulte said:

 

  Whether you think it fits or would be cool is largely irrelevant. Stealth technology for aircraft is probably the most closely guarded military secret out there, next to nuclear weaponry. It's not going to happen, period, full stop, no point in pretending otherwise. DCS isn't Xplane.

 

 

It already happened - F-117 is already in DCS.

 

Yes, it's AI, yes RCS part is simplyfied, just one number, but it's simplified in case of every other aircraft (i.e. IRL F-16 is notoriously hard to detect from the front and certain angles even with F-22 radar according to real pilot due to its low radar signature and reflective shape).

 

So what other part would be impossible to model in 1980s aircraft? Avionics? Looks like they are already making it for XPlane.

 

BTW. I'm not going to argue or anything, or say gib because I want, No. If it will be made - nice, if not - ok as well.

Edited March 26, 2021 by bies

[nighthawk2174]

RCS wise you could get a decent approximation with simulations but obviously the actual RCS profile is hella classified.  But honestly with how simple DCS's RCS model is its irrelevant anyway until it gets modeled in the core game.  From my understanding the biggest limitation documentation wise is related to some specifics of the weapon systems and i'd imagine the FLCS.  For the rest however a -1 manual is out there I have a copy.

Edited March 20, 2021 by nighthawk2174

[Northstar98]

9 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

Whether you think it fits or would be cool is largely irrelevant. Stealth technology for aircraft is probably the most closely guarded military secret out there, next to nuclear weaponry. It's not going to happen, period, full stop, no point in pretending otherwise. DCS isn't Xplane.

 

Yeah, but DCS absolutely doesn't model RADARs with much fidelity anyway and RCS in DCS is a single value that is the exact same regardless of aspect or RADAR band. It doesn't matter what shape the actual object is, or what it's made out of.

 

At the moment the RCS for the F-117A is 0.01m² and as I said this doesn't change with aspect, nor is it different for RADARs operating in different bands.

[norbot]

6 minutes ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Yeah, but DCS absolutely doesn't model RADARs with much fidelity anyway and RCS in DCS is a single value that is the exact same regardless of aspect or RADAR band. It doesn't matter what shape the actual object is, or what it's made out of.

 

At the moment the RCS for the F-117A is 0.01m² and as I said this doesn't change with aspect, nor is it different for RADARs operating in different bands.

This! So we don‘t have to argue about RCS, aspect angle or being classified. And don‘t tell me it‘s still in service. Most of the other modern aircraft in DCS are still in service, too (A-10, AV-8, F-16, F-18 - just to name a few).

[TotenDead]

11 часов назад, bies сказал:

 

Christen Eagle or Yak-52 don't carry even one bomb. Not even a machinegun. Yet they are still worth the effort of full fidelity simulation.

Many guys want unarmed transport C-130 or even civilian Cessna.

How many guys? And how many people fly CE or yak? Little to none? F-117 is a way more complicated plane than a trainer/aerobatics aircraft which means that if it would be as popular as those two simple props ED is going to loose money, probably lots and lots of money.

 

If anyone really wants to try what flying F-117 would be, one should take an Su-25T and load a pair of KAB-500 on it. Done. So much for fun.

[Northstar98]

@norbot Yeah, though I would like to see the RADAR simulation and fidelity improved. But when it comes to that - I'm only after a very rough aspect, and rough differentiation between higher frequency RADARs and lower frequency RADARs.

 

Spoiler

Just as an example, for the F-117A in C:MANO.

 

Against long-wavelength A-D band (new NATO nomenclature)/I-L band (old NATO nomenclature) RADARs, the RCS of the F-117A is 0.031m², 0.051m² and 0.031m² for the front, side and rear respectively.

 

Against E-M band (new NATO nomenclature)/S-W band (old NATO nomenclature) RADARs, the RCS is 10x less for all of them respectively.

 

It's an improvement over what we've got - actually taking rough band and aspect into account, I'm not going to say anything about the numbers - they either come from an unclassified source or are arbitrary, made up or guesstimated. 

 

[A-D Band is 30 MHz - 2 GHz and E-M Band is 2 - 100 GHz]

 

16 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

How many guys? And how many people fly CE or yak? Little to none?

 

How would you know? MP is the minority.

 

Edited March 20, 2021 by Northstar98

[TotenDead]

22 минуты назад, Northstar98 сказал:

 

 

How would you know? MP is the minority.

 

 

Yeah-yeah, so ED says. How long did it take Yak to get at least the very simplest DM? It's been undestructable for years. Oh, it's still in early access, oh boy, that's not strange at all, it's been out for only 3 years. And if we check the amount of messages here, on the forum, what would we see? Mi-24 which isn't even in the EA has been discussed more than a 3yo module. That must be a great sign of how popular Yak is. The situation with CE is even worse in terms of popularity, but at least it's released

Edited March 20, 2021 by TotenDead

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, TotenDead said:

Yeah-yeah, so ED says.

 

Whoops, forgot there was a conspiracy going on.

 

Quote

Oh, it's still in early access, oh boy, that's not strange at all, it's been out for only 3 years.

 

Early access for 3 years is par for the course for DCS World modules. 

 

But it is true that ED need to have a kick up the backside when it comes to the Yak-52.

 

Quote

And if we check the amount of messages here, on the forum, what would we see? Mi-24 which isn't even in the EA has been discussed more than a 3yo module. That must be a great sign of how popular Yak is.

 

What? The most iconic Soviet attack helicopter is more popular than the Yak-52? No way!

Edited March 20, 2021 by Northstar98

[GGTharos]

14 hours ago, Mars Exulte said:

 That's interesting about the aggressor role. Learning to deal with stealth fighters, good idea since we're not ''alone'' anymore.

 

 

Learning to deal with stealth fighters has been happening way before RED FLAG.   RED FLAG is a large exercise which can and often does include foreign allies.   You can bet the USAF has been 'learning' how to deal with stealth fighters and weapons in exercises which are not public for the past couple of decades.

[TotenDead]

25 минут назад, Northstar98 сказал:

 

What? The most iconic Soviet attack helicopter is more popular than the Yak-52? No way!

 

That's the reason i answered to your statement about CE and yak-52 in the first place. It's obvious that unarmed trainers and cargo planes wouldn't be as popular as combat planes.

Now, back to F-117. Is it iconic? Well, for some people - sure. But is it an effective platform in DCS environment? Two bombs, poor avionics so nah. Not effective = not very popular. Not popular = why make it in the first place? IIRC yak-52 was added to DCS only because it was developed for someone else in the first place and it took little to no effort to implement it here

[Northstar98]

1 minute ago, TotenDead said:

Is it iconic? Well, for some people - sure. But is it an effective platform in DCS environment? Two bombs, poor avionics so nah.

 

There might be more to it than that...

 

1 minute ago, TotenDead said:

Not effective = not very popular. Not popular = why make it in the first place?

 

I personally couldn't give a damn about how effective something is, it is hardly the only relevant metric here.

 

If all anybody cared about was capability, they'd buy the F-16CM, F/A-18C, JF-17 and the Apache when it comes out and leave it at that.

[TotenDead]

Только что, Northstar98 сказал:

 

 

If all anybody cared about was capability, they'd buy the F-16CM, F/A-18C, JF-17 and the Apache when it comes out and leave it at that.

 

Check online, dude, check online. F-16/18 ARE the most popular modules in the game

[Northstar98]

4 minutes ago, TotenDead said:

Check online, dude, check online. F-16/18 ARE the most popular modules in the game

 

Again, minority of the player base.

 

And don't twist my point, I said the only thing people would buy would be those modules and they wouldn't buy anything else, is that the case? That the easy majority of modules in DCS are failures?

Edited March 20, 2021 by Northstar98

[Pikey]

Whilst a bomber might be cool, the most important part of a F117 would be its low RCS. So it ends up a high altitude night attack profile with little to no interaction with any enemy (if it goes well).
So, assuming you are simming it right, the operation of one of these would be less interesting and engaging than a tanker module.

This is a case of not giving people what they think they want, just keep giving them what they need.

I'd suggest anyone with a hankering for sitting in a confined space in the dark for 16 hours with very little to do, could be buried alive until they decide its not for them.

[TotenDead]

Только что, Northstar98 сказал:

 

Again, minority of the player base.

 

And again, the only thing people would buy would be those modules and they wouldn't buy anything else.

That so called minority is thousands of players, so that pretty much describes the overall popularity. And again, most players have only a few (one or two) modules at best. And of course they mainly buy big dogs like 16/18 in the first place. Few purchase less capable stuff if they have enough time and money 

[Tippis]

2 hours ago, TotenDead said:

How many guys? And how many people fly CE or yak?

Enough that it was worth making. All other considerations are irrelevant, especially such niche and wholly ignorable aspects as “multiplayer efficiency”.