BS3 still happening?

[Volk.]

@ResonantCard1 at day, with targets not hidden to hell and gone the Apache isn't going to lay waste to more things than the Black Shark, if that's the bar. Hellfires have similar range and should kill most armour targets from most angles in one hit, just like a Vikhr.

Apache more iconic/history, yes. FLIR helping you find that target a bit faster, yes. Though a small pixelly blob of white is still a blob and doesn't immediately get a chevron above it saying baddy, so you'll still need to get closer to tell if it's a civvy car or a BMP. Maybe we get radar, but it shouldn't be a magical launch-16-missiles every payload. 16 Hellfires is massively heavy, as is that 'carry 1200 rounds' thing - you'll find the airframe can barely carry other munitions and/or is sluggish. Ka-50 is 20% heavier, but has far more powerful engines, so that typical full load doesn't bother it that much.

If you don't have a personal attachment to the aesthetics, nationalities or history of one airframe over another, then the main reason to play Black Shark over the Apache is this - you're never twiddling your thumbs. You're always doing something, and it's your skill level making it happen - very little is given. If you're learning it from scratch, and restricted yourself to learning only one seat (coz Apache is very complex), then Apache will be easier, but in terms of offloading your stress and acquisition. So you'll get that multicrew experience, but you may find you're doing less than you'd like, e.g. you're just looking around while the other guy flies (once you've maybe done nav), or you're sitting back doing less as hover mode's engaged while the front seater takes shots. Hopefully the AI isn't a disaster (as there's even more stuff that can go wrong that low vs. Jester).

 

2 hours ago, ResonantCard1 said:

I don't see many of those "older and less capable" ones being flown in the servers I frequent

There's a key bit. People flying a HIND won't as frequently pop up on a server dominated by tech 20 years later. Even if it's not PVP, you're just not going to have much room to feature with threats far beyond you capability to deal with and likely that F/A18c has already cluster-bombed/HARMed that target long before your Apache could get in there, nevermind a HIND. A HIND would be better suited on maps made for the 70's/early 80s.

 

BS has been out for ages and a lot of people have it already. In time the Apache may outsell it, given the amount of nations using it, history and capability. But it can't replace the coaxial nor the single-pilot experience. In terms of dominating the map in daytime vs. a Shark...doubtful. Slight edge, but not dominating if you know what you're doing.

[Mike_Romeo]

3 hours ago, ResonantCard1 said:

While it's true that the modules certainly exist, I don't see many of those "older and less capable" ones being flown in the servers I frequent. Literally 90% of the players spend their time in the Hornet or the Viper, undoubtly because they're the most modern and capable ones.

 

Just want to say that 90% of the players play DCS offline (source). Not everyone plays multiplayer and who knows what the others fly in SP. Most of use dont care about how good or bad the capabilities of a plane are but the guys who play only multiplayer do because they only want to get as many kills as possible.

Edited January 17, 2021 by Mike_Romeo

[Fastbreak]

If the Apache development time is similar to KA-50, well, the Apache could be a real threat for the KA-50 ... in about 10 years?

 

And of course, to bridge the dire straits and to avoid a rebelion, ED will introduce a big shiny red all around extinction button for all fast and furious fan boys.

 

 

Forgive me, please, I could not resist...

 

 

 

[Raven434th]

I say scrap the BS3 and make it a Ka-52 hokum

[dimitriov]

@ResonantCard1

 

If I may simply say : 

 

Why would I prefer the Kamov over the Apache ? Very simple : Single seated, capable attack helicopter. 

 

I do'nt like the idea to rely on AI for my business, nor do I like the idea to rely on someone for it neither. 

 

As simple as this. Kamov could be a 1856 Crimean war helicopter that I would stick to it. It's obvious that Apache is vastly superior on many technical aspects. But well, 2 people in it, so in a way, it's too for me vastly inferior. 

 

And I think I can say that most people who like the Black Shark simply look at this part. 

 

I don't know what are the servers you fly on, but on mines there are far more M2K than F-18, and no F-16... This to simply say that seeing something on your side does not imply that it represents a global truth, at all. And for the PVP part between a Kamov and an Apache, well, by essence, the fact that there would be two people aboard would paradoxaly put the apache at complete disadvantage for 99% of players because players are not real, trained and efficient apache crews. This is already very easy to notice with F-14. Two average people to man in synchronization an attack helo will always be far less efficient than one average guy who's in charge on everything onboard. Dual working can only work if everything is 100% perfect, else, it's tears. 

 

As explained by others above, PVP helo scenario simply rarely or never happen. On a now nearing 10 years Kamov-50 experience on my side, having participated in maaany turnaments or PVP servers, my very simple (in all humility sincerely) constatation is that everything relies on who shoots first. I've decimated entire Kamov/Uh-1/Gazelles Mistral squads alone, by getting around them and acting wisely. Sometimes 1 againt 5. How ? Surprise, shock, get the fishes to panick, slaughter them. Giving them FLIR, RWR, Hellfires and HMD would not have changed a thing about it, because they never saw me.  

 

I've shot down F-15, F-16, F-14, M2K, Harriers, A-10, Sukhoi and yadiyada many times too, because they thought the same way than you "A kamov-50, he has no chances of survival against my beautiful aircraft". Best memory about this was during a french tournament, nice story... People knew me because of my (small, very small) YT channel, so they decided to find me and kill me. And so 3 Mirage 2000 and one harrier took off with one sole purpose : kill me. They found me. approx 3 min later, in a concert of general laughing on the whole discord, 2 mirage and one harrier had been shot, 1 was damaged and flying back to base. 

 

Training, practice, and luck this is all. I would nowadays be completely unable to reproduce the very high level I had managed to reach at this time, but if I got able to shoot down so many people on so many airframes, I think that many other people can do it too, and actually very probably do it too, and that the Apache will simply be a new threat to take into account. A threat and a big one, but still a vulnerable one. Actually, a very, very vulnerable one, like all helicopters. Except on some really unbelievable scenarii like the above lil story, an encounter with a fighter plane was quite often a painful experience. And if I may share some feelings about this, here it is : something like 70% of encounters end with your death. If the plane did not manage to get you on first run though, it quite often becomes a 50/50 scenario : He kills you, or you A) Hide 10% B) Kill him 40%. Again for those who state that it's not possible to lock an air target efficiently : train. I can't say anything, train. Spend hours on it. And opposed to your primary instinct : don't run away : keep him in sight, get ready, if you get to shoot him, it'll make a nice story to tell on a forum at 1 AM 5 years later, nothing funnier than people not believing you've managed to piss off a jet...

 

But helos... That's simple : I never got shot down by one, because I luckily never got surprised by one. End of the story. 

 

Nicolas

Edited January 18, 2021 by dimitriov

[3WA]

@dimitriov

Well, in my experience, the only way to get a lock on a jet or heli, is when they are coming straight at you, and then it is still many presses of the lock key.

If they're flying to either side of you, it's impossible to lock.

As for people saying that heli's should not hunt each other, than why do the AI helicopters IMMEDIATELY start moving towards me the minute I spawn?  In the mission Battle, I had a Cobra chase me all the way to the lake that lies beyond the battlefield.  So, people acting like the enemy heli's and jet's won't attack you is BS.  You've got to get them before they get you.  This is why, in a single manned heli where MANY things are going on at once, we need Igla's.

The other thing we need is FLIR, so we can fly at night and target objects.

[dimitriov]

I would not spit on Iglas, nor FLIR, but I can guarantee you that you need to train, or to be trained, accordingly, and that locking at a plane or an helo even moving sideways is hard but perfectly doable with the right timing, on a single push, up to an average 8 km, in an extremely reliable pattern once learnt. The key is to push the lock right before the plane enters the lock cage. It won't be this useful though, as lock will probably be lost in case the plane suddenly faces you or changes direction. 

 

Again, I fly it for 10 years, habits, training, you can't learn this kind of thing in one day, but in years of a painful curve. 

 

I've seen the Igla debate going on since I started the sim. I ended learning how taking advantage of 100% of my helicopter, instead of using it at 50% and relying on a magical solution when I mess up. 

 

Though, I would never engage an AI Hellfire helicopter, as well as an AI Kamov or Mi-28 : They are insta-lock machines and you won't avoid their magical shots. Humans are far weaker, which is why we need for John Connor. 

 

Nicolas

Edited January 18, 2021 by dimitriov

[3WA]

@dimitriov

 

And how many casual players are going to train for that long?  I've been playing for many years as well, and I still can't get the jets and heli's to lock at even 4 or 5 kilometers.  It's VERY frustrating.  I would never want to fly real combat in a heli this weak.  It's suicide against AI flyers.  And they COME AT YOU!

When AH-64 comes out, all players will ditch the Ka-50 in favor for the Apache, and then they will proceed to SLAUGHTER the Ka-50 pilots.  At night, we won't be able to fly against anything at all, as the West will dominate the skies with FLIR.  Is Russia, in reality, really this weak?

[dimitriov]

I'm french so can't say. I would not overestimate the average level of helos players, generally, because flying an attack helicopter in a complex environment is anyway extremely selective and they globally would face the same problems than you. Plus why would you take off at night knowing that there are Ah-64 in the area ? 

 

Apache is really interesting on the technical aspect, again, my only problem is the dual seat thing. Except this, I'm really happy to see it coming. For me it's an unrealistic fear you have, when I "had fun" shooting down helos, I should have noted that I actually crossed the whole map to reach their objectives and ambush them. Server was not thought for this, I often ended being intercepted by fighters. I simply was not supposed to get in a situation where I could shoot them, it was very selfish of me to be sincere. So for you, on a PVP server, if ever you wish to get on one : Don't worry, you will get shot down by a plane as usual but you will realisticaly never meet an apache. 

Edited January 18, 2021 by dimitriov

[ResonantCard1]

1 hour ago, Raven434th said:

I say scrap the BS3 and make it a Ka-52 hokum

Literally impossible. They're scraping the BS3 because Russian laws forbid them from making stuff that new. The Ka-52 would only be worse. Besides they're going to need the manpower for the Apache so don't even bother with the Ka-52.

 

3 hours ago, Volk. said:

There's a key bit. People flying a HIND won't as frequently pop up on a server dominated by tech 20 years later. Even if it's not PVP, you're just not going to have much room to feature with threats far beyond you capability to deal with and likely that F/A18c has already cluster-bombed/HARMed that target long before your Apache could get in there, nevermind a HIND. A HIND would be better suited on maps made for the 70's/early 80s.

 

BS has been out for ages and a lot of people have it already. In time the Apache may outsell it, given the amount of nations using it, history and capability. But it can't replace the coaxial nor the single-pilot experience. In terms of dominating the map in daytime vs. a Shark...doubtful. Slight edge, but not dominating if you know what you're doing.

 

Yeah, because the 70s/80s are so fleshed out in DCS...We have what, the MiG-29, Su-25, -27 and the F-14? 

8 minutes ago, 3WA said:

@dimitriov

 

And how many casual players are going to train for that long?  I've been playing for many years as well, and I still can't get the jets and heli's to lock at even 4 or 5 kilometers.  It's VERY frustrating.  I would never want to fly real combat in a heli this weak.  It's suicide against AI flyers.  And they COME AT YOU!

When AH-64 comes out, all players will ditch the Ka-50 in favor for the Apache, and then they will proceed to SLAUGHTER the Ka-50 pilots.  At night, we won't be able to fly against anything at all, as the West will dominate the skies with FLIR.  Is Russia, in reality, really this weak?

Russia has been trailing behind the US since...I'd say Korea but it's more like WW2. I can't think of a single thing that the russians have ever done better than the US (except making vehicles that lose wars of course). The Apache for example is from the 70s and back then it already had that crazy HMD and the Hellfires. Meanwhile the Russians had what, the Hind with some old-ass SACLOS (at best) missiles?

 

[dimitriov]

I think that your remarks are actually badly sourced and globally wrong. Both sides simply don't share the same philosophy, and doctrine. The "America is best" is very nice indeed, my opinion is that a real conflict would have ended in a mutual and in fine very well balanced slaughter. 

 

And Apache got qualified for Hellfire around 1985......

Edited January 18, 2021 by dimitriov

[ResonantCard1]

1 minute ago, dimitriov said:

I think that your remarks are actually badly sourced and globally wrong. Both sides simply don't share the same philosophy, and doctrine. The "America is best" is very nice indeed, my opinion is that a real conflict would have ended in a mutual and in fine very well balanced slaughter. 

 

However the Soviet philosophy and doctrine is deeply flawed. In an air war you can't just spam aircraft at a technologically superior enemy and see if it goes away. The arabs already tried that and it didn't work. Plus, the pilots would also be relying 100% on GCI to be useful at all. Which means when the GCI network gets, inevitably, destroyed or jammed, they're going to be like headless chickens because their radars won't allow for self-search and even if they did, their weapons and aircraft are simply not up to par. By late 70s the best thing the Soviets had was the...MiG-23. The F-15 was already in service back then, and it would have eaten MiG-23s for breakfast, lunch and diner. Not to mention the MiG-21, a fine aircraft for the late 50s but completely outdated since its introduction. 

[dimitriov]

Because you get it wrong. Soviets were perfectly aware of their aircraft tehcnology being behind past the mid 70. So they increased resources in the development of a vast, and vastly superior in both quality and quantity SAM cover, and there is no real debate about their ability at this time to use them very efficiently. They knew they would loose a conventionnal air battle. They had less planes, of lesser quality. So they compensated on other sides. And Americans did the same in other domains, and Soviets did the same in others and yadi yada. 

Edited January 18, 2021 by dimitriov

[ResonantCard1]

1 minute ago, dimitriov said:

Because you get it wrong. Soviets were perfectly aware of their aircraft tehcnology being behind past the mid 70. So they increased resources in the development of a vast, and vastly superior in quality SAM cover, and there is no real debate about their ability at this time to use them very efficiently. They knew they would loose a conventionnal air battle. They had less planes, of lesser quality. So they compensated on other sides. And Americans did the same in other domains, and Soviets did the same in others and yadi yada. 

Yes, SAMs. SAMs that would get SEAD/DEAD'd on the first day of conflict and nobody would be able to prevent that because the air force that was supposed to protect them simply wasn't good enough. So to prevent complete destruction the sites are switched off, which leaves the fighters defenseless before the horde of F-15s. SAMs aren't a reliable thing either, they're not magical things that when they shoot, shoot something down. And if the airspace is very contested you aren't going to be firing them anyway for fear of hitting your own planes. So really, the air force was alone. The SAMs are all fine and dandy until an actual force comes around with ways to deal with them. So with the main "advantage" of the Soviets neutralized, and their air force posing no real threat, the US is now free to obliterate their ground forces. The truth is that the Soviets didn't have advantages in any domain. Maybe manpower and just because they used conscription, who probably left a lot to be desired in terms of motivation, combat efficency and general trainning. 

[dimitriov]

And therefore they would increase mobility and autonomy of their SAM to avoid SEAD, and yadi yada we keep going on...

 

So basically, you come on a BS2 thread, for saying what ? That Russian gear is shitty ? That your national pride is great ? Go open an "America First We're The Greatest Country In the World" thread then... I'm not even Russian, but except feeling insulted for the very numerous technological acheivements they made in 50 years and are still doing nowadays, I don't think your way of speaking would lead to anything. 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2021 by dimitriov

[GGTharos]

I think it was a response to the question of 'Is Russia really that weak?'.

 

Anyway, that's not something we'll answer here, but as far as the helicopter goes, fly it when you have top cover.   People won't coordinate?  That kind of sucks but it's the same for everyone.

AH-64s?  They're facing the same problems.   I don't see why people want to frame this as a Ka-50 vs AH-64 thing, because it's not or at least shouldn't be like that.   Helis are there to support troops and armor, not to hunt other helicopters.   If you're engaging and enemy heli, it's not entirely unlilkely that his wingman is engaging you.   

Edited January 18, 2021 by GGTharos

[3WA]

Lol, if you play offline missions, you WILL be engaging enemy helicopters, whether you like it or not.  When you spawn, and there are enemy heli's around, immediately dive for cover.

 

I made the mistake on Battle of staying high for about a minute after I spawned, and immediately ate a TOW from the Cobra.

[26-J39]

4 hours ago, 3WA said:

Lol, if you play offline missions, you WILL be engaging enemy helicopters, whether you like it or not.  When you spawn, and there are enemy heli's around, immediately dive for cover.

 

I made the mistake on Battle of staying high for about a minute after I spawned, and immediately ate a TOW from the Cobra.

lol,  if you play offline mission where enemy helos come after when you spawn then your mission designer is not very clever.  :)

 

If you make a mistake and take a TOW up the *** then who's fault is that?  :)

 

Complaining (among other things) that AI helos come after you is pointless, everyone including ED know AI needs a work over.   It is what it is atm.

[Volk.]

8 hours ago, ResonantCard1 said:

Russia has been trailing behind the US since...I'd say Korea but it's more like WW2

That's a hell's no. A lotta tech has been developed to catch up to Russia. As with most military tech it's a case of oh look, they got that, we need a new X to counter it, and btw how did they do it. There are periods where one country/faction seems behind playing that catchup, e.g. when the Tomcat came out, while the Russians had nasty Mig31s/25s (I forget which one is not the scout), it took them a while to come out with the Su-27 and then 33 which I'd wager is a direct counter.

Yes, they started slipping on the jet front, but then again their SAMs are nasty. Economics also plays a factor - not every nation the weapons-makers would like to approach can afford maintaining an airforce. Ground based defenses are cheap (in comparison), and while it takes them a while to go somewhere the ground clutter they're on makes it far harder to spot them and easier to hide. Yes you can even hide from FLIR. As for the argument on HARMS, think about how expensive a HARM is and weight constraints vs. a ground based platform, where even your stealthy plane is clearly silhouetted in the sky without ground clutter or the ability to mask quickly behind a tree. And yes, the jet can also be detected for it's radar looking for things. Clever ground commanders have been known to switch off the radars and stay mobile, which makes it really hard to knock out. You also generally know where an aircraft carrier or airfield is, and can focus efforts on some likely angles of entry for those jets, whereas any terrain with some cover that can be driven through the SAMs could be hiding anywhere.

In terms of the effectiveness of US forces in 'Arabian' countries - superior numbers, planning and coordination had a lot to do with that as well. Not just the tech of any aircraft on it's own.

 

Now Russia did kinda fall behind in attack helo tech around the '80s/90s, which is where our Shark is from and the fall of the union meant we never got the Shark after it got polished up (as every helo takes a few initial iterations to get good - rarely is the "A" model what people remember fondly). Maybe they've caught up with once the Ka-52 and then Mi-28 was operational. I know spec wise they have pretty much similar gear to the Apache E guardian, but can't tell you how they truly rate up, as yet again many specs you can read up outside of classified sources is marketed up. In terms of present day strength/development of the forces they're probably behind in spending.

 

8 hours ago, 3WA said:

When AH-64 comes out, all players will ditch the Ka-50 in favor for the Apache, and then they will proceed to SLAUGHTER the Ka-50 pilots

If Apache gets radar, it should have an advantage if the radar can get a lock on an appropriately low moving Shark, which could then be fire & forget. Dunno, the radar's is, or wasn't perfect.

Hellfires definitely don't outrange Vikhrs, and travel slower. I'm not sure if the AGM-114K2A Hellfire II with the frag-sleeve came out in time for our 2002 AH-64D we're getting - without that you need direct hits, whereas Vikhrs are really good at taking out tail rotors, while Sharks don't have that tail rotor weakness themselves.

If they don't get the radar - then the Apache is using - wait for it - a contrast locking system, which was not always perfect. There are vids of IRL Apaches locking stuff up, but a lot of vids the front seater can be seen manually slewing to keep track of a moving truck. Now while the laser-guided Hellfire may smart enough to head to the last point it had a laser return, that helps you zero on a moving helo. So similar/shorter range, with slower moving missile than Vikhr. Maybe FLIR helps it spot, but otherwise it's who sees who first.

That said, Sharks & Apache's shouldn't necessarily be at each other's throats given their designed role. And if one really wanted to factor the economics stuff in, then it should be almost 2-3 Black Sharks facing a single Apache Longbow, which even with radar I'm pretty sure will go one way.

 

So a slaughter...no. Maybe at night, but then again the Sharks shouldn't really be flown then. But either way the Apache will also have frustrations locking up other fast-moving helos, unless ED implements it like an Ace Combat aircraft.

[notproplayer3]

22 hours ago, ResonantCard1 said:

While it's true that the modules certainly exist, I don't see many of those "older and less capable" ones being flown in the servers I frequent. Literally 90% of the players spend their time in the Hornet or the Viper, undoubtly because they're the most modern and capable ones. 

Of course on multiplayer people will want to fly the best planes if they don't want to get their asses kicked. In single player though people gonna chose what they like to fly since the scenarios are going to be adapted to the plane they fly. As someone said above me, the majority plays single player.

22 hours ago, ResonantCard1 said:

Add to that the fact that both the Ka-50 and the Hind are "the enemy's" helicopters, while the Apache is the one that flies around saving the soldiers' asses. 

What is this logic ? Pretty much half the military world has or used to have hinds as main attack helos. Apaches are the minority in comparison:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24#/media/File:Mil_Mi-24_operators.svg

You may be thinking the hind or the ka50 are "uncool" and this is your opinion but try to understand other opinions too. The US ain't the only country in this world you know... there are actually people who like and want to fly russian built machines.

16 hours ago, ResonantCard1 said:

Russia has been trailing behind the US since...I'd say Korea but it's more like WW2. I can't think of a single thing that the russians have ever done better than the US (except making vehicles that lose wars of course). The Apache for example is from the 70s and back then it already had that crazy HMD and the Hellfires. Meanwhile the Russians had what, the Hind with some old-ass SACLOS (at best) missiles?

You seem to be pretty biased as an anti russian as I believe what you say is blatantly wrong. This isn't even the debate of this thread yet you still take the chance to shit on russian equipment (quite ironic since you've got a mig21 in your pfp). North Vietnam won on the Americans with soviet equipment and especially with soviet built planes, sams, and AAA.

The mig29 had a helmet mounted sight with high off boresight capability which the Americans didn't have. In any case I could go on about soviet military technology and how interesting it was but I don't believe this is the topic of this thread.

How about we keep talking about why I want the BS3 and you saying how you don't want the BS3 ?

[Mars Exulte]

Well, we've established RC has no idea what he's talking about and gets all his concepts from the advertisements in Stars and Stripes, so I think it's safe to move on with the ''ignore'' function @@

[Sh4rk]

I don't care for the Apache.

 

I want to fly the Ka-50, it's the one module I like the most. I also have the A-10, F-18.... Still fly the Ka-50 over them most of the time.

 

I like the Russian systems, HUD, etc better. I don't care which have been used in more wars or is more capable. I'd buy BS3 on day 1 of pre-release. The Apache I might never.

 

I use it mostly in multiplayer. Aside fighting ground stuff, sometimes player controlled, sometimes in PVP you come against planes or other helos. 

 

Planes will just Fox you out of existence from BVR, but if they launch IR missiles, you still have flares. If they come with guns you have a good chance of putting a Vikhr or rounds on them.

An Igla would be the ideal defensive weapon in this case, and the RWR would alleviate the frustration that is just unexpectedly blowing up mid-air because you didn't knew a missile was coming from 20 miles away. Even if you can't hide, at least you knew what was coming. 

 

Those 2 things alone would make the Ka50 experience in general a lot better. You can't replace those with a whole new helo with different systems, even if they're better ones.

[3WA]

Yep.  Igla, RWR, FLIR.  They are all on the Ka-52.

[Volk.]

And the missile warning system (on the Ka-52). I think they ditched the mast-mounted (L-band?) radar though, or rather incorporated it into the nose, so unsure what it's detection of jets would be.

 

I don't recall reading that the Night Attack models had the MWS/DIRCMS. No idea if they mounted IGLAS/R-73. But if the MWS is a no-go, that would be a pretty sweet option to have. Still no easy ride in terms of warning you of incoming jet missiles, but your awareness should help find some of those pesky SAMs/TOW missiles before a missile warning system would be needed.

[chromium]

19 ore fa, Sh4rk ha scritto:

Those 2 things alone would make the Ka50 experience in general a lot better. You can't replace those with a whole new helo with different systems, even if they're better ones.

 

They didn't replace anything.

They're developing the Apache, AND they can't go on with Ka-50 upgrades cause of Russian law updates.