Does stealth technology work in this game, and one of the questions.

[fatgreta1066]

There are a couple of user made first Gulf war scenarios that I like to play over and over again. In all of them, the F117s get picked up and shot down mercilessly. Something like 95% of the missions I sent them on get them killed. So that leads me to wonder, does stealth technology work correctly in the game?

Last question for now, if I put a naval battle group on a strike mission using Tomahawks and their first valley does not destroy all of the targets how do I trigger them to fire again and again until their Tomahawks are depleted?

Thanks much

[Knightpawn]

Hi

Stealth does not equal invisible.
Check this to get a feeling
https://youtu.be/ZzFr_hG7gg4?si=jK-RG5JMY0--AcNg

[tylerblakebrandon]

Yes, stealth works but it's not a magic bullet. It requires use in context and support.

Be aware that many old radars or newer "anti-stealth" radars with long wavelengths work well against LO and VLO aerial targets.

And question, was your F-117 supported in the same way as the actual Nighthawk raids in Desert Storm? Or did you just send it in unsupported?

[fatgreta1066]

That is a good question, and I’m not really sure how they were specifically supported at that time. I did have a lot of jammer aircraft flying. But none of them were particularly close to the targets.

[thewood1]

Desert Storm had a huge EW support component on the first night specifically to mask F-117 approaches. And F-117s were detected but either with poor tracking or too close to matter. Not a Pound for Air to Ground's youtube channel has a couple good videos on this specific topic that are great listens.

[fatgreta1066]

Awesome, I'll probably end up rabbit holing that youtube channel. I appreciate the feedback, it's very helpful.

[BDukes]

Watch those spoonrests as well. They can detect you at 50nm head on at altitude.

Just looking at the Serb F-117 shootdown and they used Spoonrest at lowest bandwidth setting and detected the F-117 at 15nm with incomplete info. Spoonrest was standard issue for most WP clients.

I'd consider:

• Taking advantage of the new comms feature. Match datalinks and you can cut them using jamming or hitting specific nodes.

• When attacking using F-117s still play by the rules in terms of radar horizon, masking, etc.

• Jamming can jam fire control radars but to block the search radars you have to have a jammer on the same line as the F-117.

• You should definitely help them along the way. Pretty sure the first target(s) of Army Apache's on minute one were radar sites that did have spoonrests.

M

[HalfLifeExpert]

Stealth is effective, but it's hardly a magic solution.

It doesn't make an aircraft completely invisible to radar, it just MASSIVELY reduces the effective detection range (depending on the radar in question). If it can reduce detection to just within (daylight) visual range, than it's effectively done it's job.

For proper effectiveness, Stealth aircraft should have SEAD and EW support to attack targets (this is why the F-35 has Jamming capability). Just sending a stealth aircraft into the heart of an active (and reasonably competent) IADS, by itself, will likely be shot down. Maybe it can hit it's target, but it might not get out alive.

To add onto what BDukes said in the prior comment, that 1999 Shootdown also benefited from the fact that the USAF had gotten a bit too overconfident, in the sense that the F-117s kept on coming in on the same or very similar bearings every night of Op. Allied Force up to that point, so the AD commander was able to accurately predict the general area where the F-117 would be coming from.

The Serbs knew what they were doing when it came to modern Air Defense. They ended up being overwhelmed and ground down in the longer-run, but they were far more capable and smarter than the Iraqis were 8 years earlier, given their limited resources.

Desert Storm had a huge EW support component on the first night specifically to mask F-117 approaches. And F-117s were detected but either with poor tracking or too close to matter. Not a Pound for Air to Ground's youtube channel has a couple good videos on this specific topic that are great listens.

True, and even then, they were not completely sure that the Nighthawks would come back unscathed. While not the exact first combat sortie of the Nighthawk, that first night in 1991 was the first time it went up against a major IADS, and the pilots knew there was serious danger. The fact that they all dropped their bombs on target and got back without a scratch was NOT a foregone conclusion by any means, especially with all that flak that was being thrown up over Baghdad.

[Nikel]

A little test.

F-117A Nighthawk attacking an Iraqui Spoon Rest D Radar protected by SAMs. Iraq point of view.

I had to reduce the altitude on the Nighthawk manually for it to drop the Paveways, I think it is a bug.

Scenario by Kennetho.

https://forums.matrixgames.com/viewtopi ... 0#p4422980


Related article.

https://www.airandspaceforces.com/artic ... lectronic/



Without jammer support.

NEW.gif (3.42 MiB) Viewed 2940 times

With jammer support, EF-11A Raven. Adding more jammers present in the scenario (Prowler, Compass Call) will not change the result.

EW.gif (3.13 MiB) Viewed 2940 times

[Nikel]

There are a couple of user made first Gulf war scenarios that I like to play over and over again. In all of them, the F117s get picked up and shot down mercilessly. Something like 95% of the missions I sent them on get them killed. So that leads me to wonder, does stealth technology work correctly in the game?

Last question for now, if I put a naval battle group on a strike mission using Tomahawks and their first valley does not destroy all of the targets how do I trigger them to fire again and again until their Tomahawks are depleted?

Thanks much

Which are those, Kennetho scenarios?


Regarding the naval group strike mission, you may try changing to Winchester in the target tab.

W.png (108.98 KiB) Viewed 2909 times

Also you may play with the weapon state options.

W2.png (90.67 KiB) Viewed 2908 times

[Dimitris]

There are a couple of user made first Gulf war scenarios that I like to play over and over again. In all of them, the F117s get picked up and shot down mercilessly. Something like 95% of the missions I sent them on get them killed. So that leads me to wonder, does stealth technology work correctly in the game?

Yes, it does. Plan and coordinate better VLO is not an "I win" button.

[madavid0]

There's no way this thing is getting a useful target track at those ranges.

All a long-wavelength radar like this is good for against stealth aircraft is early warning. Also the signal processing and noise level is going to be trash compared to a modern high-end targeting radar.

Operators can still lob missiles in a contact's direction and hope its on-board seeker gets a lock but the performance in those clips are outrageous lol. I think this is simply a game-balance choice or "someone" asked the devs to tone down the effectiveness of the signal modeling. Could also be why hydrophone performance dropped off a cliff some time ago.

[Dimitris]

All a long-wavelength radar like this is good for against stealth aircraft is early warning. Also the signal processing and noise level is going to be trash compared to a modern high-end targeting radar.
Operators can still lob missiles in a contact's direction and hope its on-board seeker gets a lock but the performance in those clips are outrageous lol.

This is accurately modelled in CMO. You can get a rough location, and it's very useful for cueing other systems in, but you cannot guide a weapon without another more precise sensor getting a solid hit.

I think this is simply a game-balance choice or "someone" asked the devs to tone down the effectiveness of the signal modeling.

Neither.

Could also be why hydrophone performance dropped off a cliff some time ago.

Not aware of this, but you are of course welcome to make a proper report on the Tech Support forum if you suspect a flaw/bug.

[BDukes]

There's no way this thing is getting a useful target track at those ranges.

All a long-wavelength radar like this is good for against stealth aircraft is early warning. Also the signal processing and noise level is going to be trash compared to a modern high-end targeting radar.

It starts the OODA clock in CMO and in real life gets other radars looking at it. In terms of quality its been around for a long time, has been updated consistently, and still used in some form, everywhere.

Operators can still lob missiles in a contact's direction and hope its on-board seeker gets a lock but the performance in those clips are outrageous lol. I think this is simply a game-balance choice or "someone" asked the devs to tone down the effectiveness of the signal modeling.

Not sure I'd go that far in imagining the process. Why are you?

Could also be why hydrophone performance dropped off a cliff some time ago.

Not sure on this one. Do you have a save.

Mike