Aircraft Stealth

[UltimateBawb 1]

Why is there no stealth simulation on the NATO aircraft (Ghosthawk, Blackfoot, Wipeout)? The designs of each should presumably decrease/eliminate radar signature and decrease the accuracy of MANPAD's and other SAM's, no? Could this be implemented?

[disco.modder 116]

Apparently in the future MANPADs and SAMs technology have also gone forward thus giving operators the ability to swat stealth aircraft out of the sky. ;)

[blackpixxel 53]

Yeah, it will ever be the same. One side developes advanced weapons, the other one finds an advanced protection. This is a never ending contest. But since every faction uses the same AA weapons in the game (which is simply absurd) it would be great to see a difference between the radar behavour of the smaller stealthy Comanche or the fat and heavy Mi48 as well as other stealth vehicles.

[the_demongod 31]

It would also be cool to see actual MANPADS simulation, instead of everybody using literally an antitank launcher to kill aircraft. To make matters worse all sides use the same one. I wish we had some properly-simulated passive infrared guided missiles like the FIM-92 from Arma II.

It would keep helicopter pilots on their toes having to scan for those missiles visually ;D

[swiftn7 1]

Since there is no radar system implemented in Arma, there is obviously no way to make this happen. All targeting is done by IR, as far as I understood.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?180867-Air-to-Air-missiles-and-why-they-need-to-change&p=2738179&viewfull=1#post2738179

Edited August 13, 2014 by SwiftN7

[the_demongod 31]

I see you found my thread ;)

yes It's a shame that there is no proper radar system, it would be nice to at some point see an update that improved radar (perhaps it would come along with a Jets DLC or similar).

[maturin 12]

Stealth is irrelevant at ArmA engagement ranges. At 5km a raptor or F-117 can be acquired and shot down like anything else. Maybe the missile seeker will have reduced performance, but that's it.

Remember that the F-117 was acquired at 32km by an ancient Sa-3, purely because the radar operator knew just where to look.

[chortles 263]

Just to make things funnier (or sadder), based on Moricky's old assertion about Altis' scale (that is, with the sea its total square area is almost 1000 km2) Altis is a 31x31 km map, which would be shorter than the acquisition range of a SA-3 against a F-117...

@ the_Demongod: Unfortunately I wouldn't count on it... not when the devs chose to (among other things) declare the game to be in "launch" state despite only INDFOR having fixed-wing at all (and all three jets are primarily air-to-ground attack, other than the Buzzard (AA) loadout -- which itself is the only AA loadout in the series' fifteen year history!).

[the_demongod 31]

Just to make things funnier (or sadder), based on Moricky's old assertion about Altis' scale (that is, with the sea its total square area is almost 1000 km2) Altis is a 31x31 km map, which would be shorter than the acquisition range of a SA-3 against a F-117...

@ the_Demongod: Unfortunately I wouldn't count on it... not when the devs chose to (among other things) declare the game to be in "launch" state despite only INDFOR having fixed-wing at all (and all three jets are primarily air-to-ground attack, other than the Buzzard (AA) loadout -- which itself is the only AA loadout in the series' fifteen year history!).

It's really a shame, especially if you love fixed wings as much as I do.

Stealth is irrelevant at ArmA engagement ranges. At 5km a raptor or F-117 can be acquired and shot down like anything else. Maybe the missile seeker will have reduced performance, but that's it.

Remember that the F-117 was acquired at 32km by an ancient Sa-3, purely because the radar operator knew just where to look.

The fact is that's not really relevant. Arma is obviously on a much smaller scale than a game like DCS or Falcon 4 (this is made apparent by the jets' low speed and tiny turning radii). In real life, an AIM-9 might be fired at 5+ nautical miles (~10km), but in Arma 3 they are fired at ~1km (well within guns range in real life). So chances are if stealth would follow the trend and work at much shorter distances.

[maturin 12]

An Aim-9 is IR-guided, so it tracks stealth aircraft perfectly well.

The game's MANPADS are either optically or IR-guided, and have a range of over 5km in the game, so no reduced engagement envelope there. It's unclear how the SPAAGs are guided, but it's probably not by radar. So that only leaves the made-up long-range missiles on the game's jets, which in fact have no better range than their smaller heatseekers.

The simple fact is that there are no radar-guided weapons in ArmA. So there's nothing for stealth to affect in any case. Unless you want to make stealth aircraft invisible at ranges where they should be seen by even the naked eye.

[CaptainAzimuth 714]

It would also be cool to see actual MANPADS simulation, instead of everybody using literally an antitank launcher to kill aircraft. To make matters worse all sides use the same one. I wish we had some properly-simulated passive infrared guided missiles like the FIM-92 from Arma II.

It would keep helicopter pilots on their toes having to scan for those missiles visually ;D

Not true, the only thing that can lock onto a Helicopter is Anti Air. Though, that's not to say its going to stop me from training my Special Forces team on how to TOW fire a rocket and guide it towards a hovering helicopter. :icon_twisted:

[the_demongod 31]

I know the Titan MPRL can't lock air, I was just making fun of the fact that the Titan AA looks almost identical and has a Javelin-style optic. But I too enjoy taking down helicopters with the Titan Compact's SACLOS abilities ;)

[chortles 263]

It's really a shame, especially if you love fixed wings as much as I do.

Ehhh... it's also a dev team whose leadership absolutely did not prioritize any noticeable change to the 'stealth'/target acquisition/tracking/countermeasures mechanics, nor (if they actually do plan changes to these) did said leadership treat such changes as important enough to shout from the rooftops the way they did "RotorLib FDM!" "sling loading!" "firing from vehicles!"... this is not meant to claim that said leadership is not going to do these at some point, but we can see even from the case of RotorLib (from "available and default" as of 2012 to "maybe available for modders but not used by vanilla helos" a week before the public alpha in 2013 to "re-confirmed and delivered over a year later" in 2014) to see how BI's public priorities make the development look...

That, and this title's emphasis on "infantry" as the focus (i.e. the 'assumed default' scale around which the gameplay mechanics are designed, and the prioritizing of level of simulation fidelity) being the most blatant in the series' history; I say "most blatant" since it could be that BI has in fact always treated things in a similar fashion and that Arma 3 is simply the first one where the dev leadership outright declared such as intentional.

Truthbetold the closest thing I could think of for a hopefully simple 'stealth' simulation would be some sort of parameter that would adjust the distance of detection and lock acquisition and/or speed thereof, possibly as a multiplier (i.e. 0.x of the range specified in the weapon config)...

Edited August 15, 2014 by Chortles

[the_demongod 31]

To be honest, stealth is of extremely low interest before any of that happened. It's such a finicky technology that is already being questioned in its effectiveness.

Before stealth I would much rather see:

- An improved flight model

- Improved weapon simulation (differences between radar vs. IR vs. SALH guidance, CCIP, etc)

- Improved Countermeasures (Flares, Chaff, ECM, etc)

- Improved system simulation (TGPs, TADs, HUDs, ejection, Navigation etc)

- Improved Radar simulation (ground interference, limited pulse-scan scope, in-cockpit display, Radar Warning Receiver)

- Cockpit interaction

- Sub pixel rendering & optimization overhaul to allow for high-detail view distances of 20 nautical miles and higher

And only then would I be interested in seeing stealth simulation.

And by the way, just to be clear I am completely aware that the above list is 100% out of the scope of arma and all items except for perhaps a new flight model and slight improvements to weapon & Countermeasure simulation are completely ridiculous/unreasonable requests that I never expect to see in arma 3.

Edited August 15, 2014 by the_Demongod

[sanguinius51 11]

To be honest, stealth is of extremely low interest before any of that happened. It's such a finicky technology that is already being questioned in its effectiveness.

Before stealth I would much rather see:

- An improved flight model

- Improved weapon simulation (differences between radar vs. IR vs. SALH guidance, CCIP, etc)

- Improved Countermeasures (Flares, Chaff, ECM, etc)

- Improved system simulation (TGPs, TADs, HUDs, ejection, Navigation etc)

- Improved Radar simulation (ground interference, limited pulse-scan scope, in-cockpit display, Radar Warning Receiver)

- Cockpit interaction

- Sub pixel rendering & optimization overhaul to allow for high-detail view distances of 20 nautical miles and higher

And only then would I be interested in seeing stealth simulation.

And by the way, just to be clear I am completely aware that the above list is 100% out of the scope of arma and all items except for perhaps a new flight model and slight improvements to weapon & Countermeasure simulation are completely ridiculous/unreasonable requests that I never expect to see in arma 3.

-Sub Pixel rendering is in VBS3, which is RV4, which is what Arma 3 uses.

-Cockpit interaction has been achieved by a single modder, who wasn't getting paid to do it.

-Mando Missile Mod had improved countermeasures again, by a single modder, who wasn't getting paid to do it.

[subs17 9]

How stealth works is it reduces the radar reflection to the size that is quite small, for the F117 the RCS is that of a pebble. So radar modelling needs for detection to be extremely close for the radar to pick up the stealth aircraft. For defeating IR missiles you can also have IR jammers on the aircraft which burn out the seeker of the missile. The most modern missile protection system EODAS can detect missile launches and enemy aircraft from 360 degrees around the aircraft. As well as that you can combine them with settings on the countermeasures and it automatically pops chaff/flares when a missile is launched and operates a jammer as well in some aircraft. So for A3 maybe have a stealth configuration for the aircraft where all pylons are removed and there maybe stealth pods containing the bombs/missiles and internal bomb bays would only be used. With that the radar detection range should be far smaller for the AI/players unless the aircraft is physically seen. You want a good balance so just popping one flare should not defeat the missile it should be at least 5-6 for an IR missile.

---------- Post added at 13:57 ---------- Previous post was at 13:46 ----------

Stealth is irrelevant at ArmA engagement ranges. At 5km a raptor or F-117 can be acquired and shot down like anything else. Maybe the missile seeker will have reduced performance, but that's it.

Remember that the F-117 was acquired at 32km by an ancient Sa-3, purely because the radar operator knew just where to look.

A lot of things happened for that aircraft to be shot down but it wasn't the case in Desert Storm or OEF where none were lost.

Only one F-117 (AF ser. no. 82-0806) was lost to enemy action. It was shot down during a mission against the Army of Yugoslavia on 27 March 1999, during Operation Allied Force.[46] About 8:15 pm local time, SA-3s were fired from about 8 miles (13 km) away, launched by a Yugoslav version of the Soviet Isayev S-125 "Neva" (NATO name SA-3 "Goa") anti-aircraft missile system.[46][47][48] The launcher was run by elements of the 3rd Battalion of the 250th Air Defence Missile Brigade under the command of Colonel Zoltán Dani.[49] According to Dani in a 2007 interview, his troops spotted the aircraft on radar when its bomb-bay doors opened, raising its radar signature.[50] One source states one of the missiles detonated by its proximity fuze near the F-117.[46] Dani said he kept most of his missile sites intact by frequently moving them, and had spotters looking for F-117s and other NATO aircraft. He also stated that he oversaw the modification of his targeting radar to improve its detection capability.[48]

Canopy of F-117 shot down in Serbia in March 1999 at the Museum of Aviation in Belgrade

After the explosion, the aircraft became uncontrollable, forcing the pilot to eject.[46] The pilot was recovered six hours later by a USAF para-rescue team.[51][46] Photos show that the aircraft struck the ground at low speed in an inverted position, and that the airframe remained relatively intact.[46] The Serbs invited Russian personnel to inspect the aircraft's remains, compromising the then 25-year-old U.S. stealth technology.[52] The F-117's pilot was initially misidentified. While the name "Capt Ken 'Wiz' Dwelle" was painted on the canopy, it was revealed in 2007 that the pilot was Lt. Col. Dale Zelko.[53][54] The stealth technology from the downed F-117 may have been acquired by Russia and China.[55]

Some American sources claim that a second F-117A was damaged during the same campaign, allegedly on 30 April;[56] the aircraft returned to base, but it supposedly never flew again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F117

He had his bomb bay doors open.:rolleyes:

[the_demongod 31]

-Sub Pixel rendering is in VBS3, which is RV4, which is what Arma 3 uses.

-Cockpit interaction has been achieved by a single modder, who wasn't getting paid to do it.

-Mando Missile Mod had improved countermeasures again, by a single modder, who wasn't getting paid to do it.

I know it's definitely possible (believe me, I have spent way too much time enjoying NodUnit's Apache), but the question is whether or not BI would be willing to allocate the time to add it. We can't really ask them to pour all their resources into a feature that isn't even part of the focus of the game (infantry).

[sanguinius51 11]

I know it's definitely possible (believe me, I have spent way too much time enjoying NodUnit's Apache), but the question is whether or not BI would be willing to allocate the time to add it. We can't really ask them to pour all their resources into a feature that isn't even part of the focus of the game (infantry).

While I believe that cockpit interaction is not very important, and will never come into Arma anyway, the other two will greatly enhance air combat. Sub-pixel rendering will allow air units to engage ground targets (Infantry, which is what this game focuses on) with much greater efficiency, and the improved countermeasures will allow for ground units to take down air vehicles easier. (Due to improved simulation of surface to air missiles.)

Now, will it be easy? No, I doubt it. Is it achievable? Yes. Sub-pixel rendering is a simple matter of porting the code over, and fine-tuning it to Arma 3, which may not be much, considering RV4 is used in VBS3 and A3. Improved countermeasures will be the harder of the two, but even then, it is a worthy use of time. I'm sure if BIS is willing to add highly detailed helicopter mechanics as a free DLC, they would be willing to add in sub-pixel rendering and improved countermeasures.

[chortles 263]

The broader problem underlying all of the above is that BI seems to treat the very notion of fixed wing, much less air combat at all, with lip service... as opposed to the "closer" role that helicopters play, hence the greater detail they received even before the Helicopters DLC announcement.

@ Sanguinius51: Considering that BI may not even be allowed to port the code from VBS3, I really don't believe that it's "a simple matter of porting the code over, and fine-tuning it to Arma 3, which may not be much".

[the_demongod 31]

That's the main issue, the Arma series has always been more focused on infantry combat, and jets have always gotten the least attention of all. It's very well possible that they've already decided that they're not going to improve jets much more at all. I hope we see some air superiority fighters at some point though.

[chortles 263]

That's the main issue, the Arma series has always been more focused on infantry combat, and jets have always gotten the least attention of all. It's very well possible that they've already decided that they're not going to improve jets much more at all.

Pretty much why I'm playing dennis/debbie downer -- Arma 3's just the first game where the dev leadership outright admitted to a focus on infantry combat over other aspects.

I hope we see some air superiority fighters at some point though.

Forget it -- the Buzzard (AA) is literally the only "air superiority" loadout from BI in all of Arma history. What does that tell you?