BS3 still happening?

[3WA]

Hey Chromium, I see your a modder.  Don't suppose you could just give us a mod for the Iglas and the FLIR could you?

 

I don't even care if the Igla's just float beneath the wingtip.  Better than getting killed by jets and Apache's.

[Mars Exulte]

24 minutes ago, 3WA said:

Hey Chromium, I see your a modder.  Don't suppose you could just give us a mod for the Iglas and the FLIR could you?

 

I don't even care if the Igla's just float beneath the wingtip.  Better than getting killed by jets and Apache's.

 

  Putting Iglas on a hardpoint would be easy enough by editing a LUA, FLIR is effectively impossible it's not just a ''quick hax''. Regarding iglas, as you lack any method to actually arm or aim them, they would most likely not work anyway, even if modded onto the plane.

 

  Further, this would only be useful offline in private play, but I gather you likely mean online. It would absolutely not pass integrity check and no server would allow you on with such a hacked aircraft, so there's little point in bothering.

 

  Lastly... in no world should a helo realistically expect to ''fight'' jets. You either avoid them, or operate with friendly cover. Yoloing off by yourself online into contested space is suicidal, just like it is in real life. You're not going to ''dogfight'' other helos all the time either, unless you're ''doing it wrong'' in the first place.

[dimitriov]

Iglas already were attempted to be modded, including by me. It would require to recode the entire system which is obviously not possible, as the IR guidance "script" does not exist on Ka. You can get Iglas on your helo by editing few luas... But they won't shoot unless you edit them and set the igla sensor to laser guided and not IR, which, basically, means making a vikhr reskin with no use. 

[3WA]

2 hours ago, zhukov032186 said:

You're not going to ''dogfight'' other helos all the time either, unless you're ''doing it wrong'' in the first place.

Well, I don't know if you play "offline" much, but try playing the mission "Battle" in the Ka-50.  In fact, every mission I've ever flown with heli's in them, the heli's will ignore everything else in their path, and come directly for YOU!  I have to immediately move to engage them, because they are coming straight at me.  And with a cheap joystick, like the majority of us have, it's very hard to get a lock on them.  If they get close, they will dominate you with their guns.  Sometimes, they go for a TOW at range.  They usually even kill my wingman pretty easily if I send him after them.

 

So yeah, there's no avoiding heli dog fights in Offline.  The real reason I really want Igla's.

 

Wish there was a way to just mod them in.  I know there's the old Lua trick to just change the CLSID and give your wingmen R-60's, but seems too unrealistic, and can't use them myself.

Edited January 21, 2021 by 3WA

[26-J39]

8 hours ago, 3WA said:

Well, I don't know if you play "offline" much, but try playing the mission "Battle" in the Ka-50.  In fact, every mission I've ever flown with heli's in them, the heli's will ignore everything else in their path, and come directly for YOU!  I have to immediately move to engage them, because they are coming straight at me.  And with a cheap joystick, like the majority of us have, it's very hard to get a lock on them.  If they get close, they will dominate you with their guns.  Sometimes, they go for a TOW at range.  They usually even kill my wingman pretty easily if I send him after them.

 

So yeah, there's no avoiding heli dog fights in Offline.  The real reason I really want Igla's.

 

Wish there was a way to just mod them in.  I know there's the old Lua trick to just change the CLSID and give your wingmen R-60's, but seems too unrealistic, and can't use them myself.

 

Why put yourself in crap position then complain about it?

[3WA]

Well, for one, in "Battle", you're literally thrown into it.  They really should start you further back from the battle.

 

Annndddd, there's no cover but a treeline.  Trying to use Volk's "uncage and lock" scheme where you get three seconds for the target to wander into the lock box.

 

I've seen it work now, but still difficult against fast moving targets.  Strangely, I don't recall seeing that "scan" option in the manual.  But I guess it's the same as that "scan" switch on the panel, which I also never saw in the manual.  If I can get that working well, then the only thing I will really be wanting is FLIR.

It's crazy that a copter this modern wouldn't have FLIR.  It's like they just had NO intention of every using it for night missions.

Edited January 21, 2021 by 3WA

[Volk.]

50 minutes ago, 3WA said:

It's crazy that a copter this modern wouldn't have FLIR.  It's like they just had NO intention of every using it for night missions.

It was in the HIND successor contests requirements being day-night. It seems Russian FLIR+NVG tech in that regard was bit behind vs. the West. They did build the first Ka-50 Night Attack model in '97, and then followed on a few years later with a second model. They had some issues with the safety regulations saying the NVGs needed to be plugged in as backup, which meant there were some design issues for the newer stuff where that cable could injure the pilot when ejecting. From what I understand their primary issue was simply fall of the Soviet Union and a dire lack of funding - the Ka-50 project itself, as well as the Russian developers of that tech. They did have some super-swanky helmet planned at one point, but with the dissolution that country splitting off left them without that option.

That and when the FLIR was viable, the Russian ministries just lost interest in the Ka-50 and only funded the Ka-52.

 

Random fun fact, there was even a Ka-50I 'fighter' proposed in the late 90s, mounting a radar and pure air-to-air layout to take out hang gliders, drones and aircraft - which never got funded, but sounds like what one needs for that Battle mission.

[Northstar98]

On 1/18/2021 at 12:59 AM, ResonantCard1 said:

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

 

Haha, remind me how many post 2000s air defences are currently in DCS again? What's that? 1? and it's a MANPAD, with a grand total of 1 more on the way.

 

Let's go through them all (dates specific to the versions we have, ignoring WWII).

 

REDFOR:

 

SA-2d - 70s.

SA-3 - 70s.

SA-6 - late 60s.

*SA-5 - 70s.

SA-8 - 70s

SA-9 - late 60s.

SA-10 - mid 80s.

SA-11 - 70s/80s.

SA-13 - 80s.

SA-15 - early 90s.

SA-18 - 80s.

SA-19 - 80s.

*SA-22 - 2010s.

SA-24 - 2000s.

ZU-23-2 - 60s

ZSU-23-4 - 60s

ZSU-57-2 - 50s

*AZP S60 - 50s

*KS-19 - 50s

 

BLUFOR:

 

MIM-72G - early 90s.

I-Hawk PIP Phase 1 - late 70s.

Patriot PAC-2 - early 90s.

M6 Linebacker - 80s (?).

Stinger - 80s (?)

Avenger - late 80s.

Rapier - 70s.

Roland 2 - 70s.

M163 VADS - late 60s.

FlkPz Gepard - 70s.

 

So 5 systems from the 60s, 8 systems from the 70s, 8 from the 80s, 3 from the 90s, 1 from the 2000s and 1 from the 2010s (which isn't even in yet).

 

I don't know but at least here it looks like the 70s/80s are a hell of a lot more flushed out than the post 2000s, right now having 1600% more air defence systems.

 

Quote

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).

 

Yeah, remind me of the conclusion of Vietnam and Korea again? And what equipment were they using?

 

And with the totally not biased comment, they were the first to employ composite armour arrays and APFSDS projectiles in their tanks. The first to use a phased array RADAR in a combat aircraft. They made tonnes of milestones in their space program.

 

Quote

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?

 

The Apache was introduced in the mid 80s, not the 70s. Unless you think the F/A-18C is from the 70s too...

 

And ah yes, SACLOS, clearly outdated and so old that the US definitely doesn't use it to guide TOWs today... 

 

I wonder what Hellfire was guided by at the time, oh yes semi-active laser - like the Kh-25ML, (the AGM-114L was mid 90s at the earliest).

Edited January 26, 2021 by Northstar98

[Fri13]

8 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

 

Haha, remind me how many post 2000s air defences are currently in DCS again? What's that? 1? and it's a MANPAD, with a grand total of 1 more on the way.

 

Let's go through them all (dates specific to the versions we have, ignoring WWII).

 

REDFOR:

 

SA-2d - 70s.

SA-3 - 70s.

SA-6 - late 60s.

*SA-5 - 70s.

SA-9 - late 60s.

SA-10 - mid 80s.

SA-11 - 70s/80s.

SA-13 - 80s.

SA-15 - early 90s.

SA-18 - 80s.

SA-19 - 80s.

*SA-22 - 2010s.

SA-24 - 2000s.

ZU-23-2 - 60s

ZSU-23-4 - 60s

ZSU-57-2 - 50s

*AZP S60 - 50s

*KS-19 - 50s

 

 

BLUFOR:

 

MIM-72G - early 90s.

I-Hawk PIP Phase 1 - late 70s.

Patriot PAC-2 - early 90s.

M6 Linebacker - 80s (?).

Stinger - 80s (?)

Avenger - late 80s.

Rapier - 70s.

Roland 2 - 70s.

M163 VADS - late 60s.

FlkPz Gepard - 70s.

 

I don't know, at least here it looks like the 70s/80s are orders of magnitude more flushed out than the 2000s, which has BLUFOR modules and not much else.

 yes semi-active laser - like the Kh-25ML, (the AGM-114L was mid 90s at the earliest).

 

And most of those would be still very useful and creating a threat, but what really would change many of those effectiveness would be the ECM.

 

We do not have proper SAM targeting systems, guidance, CM and CCM capabilities, no AI logic to operate those properly etc. That is the Achilles heel that renders those systems almost ineffective in the DCS.

 

Even talking about F/A-18C or AV-8B N/A capabilities, those would be a very high threat to them.

What really has changed in those are the ECM capabilities against those and improved chaff, flare cartridges, CM programs and then improved pilots tactical knowledge to fly and use those.

 

And many of those systems are very advanced to begin with. They have very effective CCM and even ECCM systems and capabilities, even when couple decades older.

But when those systems doesn't even have 1/10th of the capabilities and functions the real ones has, avoiding them in DCS is super easy. Their whole purpose to exist and function are severely undermined by the limitations in DCS.

Luckily we might see something to be done with those in the near future (in DCS terms).

 

But all it will do, is to make every game far more challenging for a individual pilot. A one SAM site on the location would likely be enough to deny the access to that area completely, and in large manner. Alone ground troops would become high threat to fighters and helicopters.

 

Question that can ED model any of those? Can they even sell anything that would offer more capabilities or more accurately modeled systems? As ED will be the "information hub" sharing that to others... foreigners etc.

 

 

[Northstar98]

On 1/25/2021 at 8:52 AM, Fri13 said:

 

And most of those would be still very useful and creating a threat, but what really would change many of those effectiveness would be the ECM.

 

We do not have proper SAM targeting systems, guidance, CM and CCM capabilities, no AI logic to operate those properly etc. That is the Achilles heel that renders those systems almost ineffective in the DCS.

 

Even talking about F/A-18C or AV-8B N/A capabilities, those would be a very high threat to them.

What really has changed in those are the ECM capabilities against those and improved chaff, flare cartridges, CM programs and then improved pilots tactical knowledge to fly and use those.

 

And many of those systems are very advanced to begin with. They have very effective CCM and even ECCM systems and capabilities, even when couple decades older.

But when those systems doesn't even have 1/10th of the capabilities and functions the real ones has, avoiding them in DCS is super easy. Their whole purpose to exist and function are severely undermined by the limitations in DCS.

Luckily we might see something to be done with those in the near future (in DCS terms).

 

But all it will do, is to make every game far more challenging for a individual pilot. A one SAM site on the location would likely be enough to deny the access to that area completely, and in large manner. Alone ground troops would become high threat to fighters and helicopters.

 

Question that can ED model any of those? Can they even sell anything that would offer more capabilities or more accurately modeled systems? As ED will be the "information hub" sharing that to others... foreigners etc.

 

I absolutely agree, but RC's point was that the 70s/80s aren't flushed out in DCS, because there aren't many BLUFOR modules or FF aircraft.

 

Sticking to fixed wing aircraft, RC mentioned the F-14 (of which we have 2, soon to be 3, though these are probably more early 90s), MiG-29 (of which we have 3), the Su-25 and Su-27; unfortunately he missed the Su-33, as well as the Mirage 2000C, MiG-21bis and F-5E-3, with the Mirage F1 (of which there are 3 of them coming for the 70s/80s) and A-7E. That brings the current running total to 8 (10 including WIP aircraft and 16 including variants). Okay only half of the 8 are full-fidelity.

 

Meanwhile for post 2000s BLUFOR, there's the 2 A-10Cs, arguably the F-15C (if weapons unrestricted), AV-8B N/A, F-16CM, F/A-18C and the JF-17, so that's 7 flyable aircraft, 6 of which being FF. There is the Typhoon coming so that bumps it up to 8 (9 including variants)

 

8 > 7 even if they aren't FF. Plus a lot more AI assets, 1500% more air defences at present for the 70s/80s compared to systems from the post 2000s.

 

Including variants 11 > 8.

 

Including variants and WIP aircraft 16 > 9, there are nearly double the amount of 70s/80s flyable aircraft than the 2000s+

 

The only other assets from the post 2000s are a handful of some pretty graphically questionable Chinese naval assets (5), and few ground vehicles (6) a few AI aircraft (3); there are far more Cold War assets.

Edited January 26, 2021 by Northstar98

[Blackjack_UK]

9 hours ago, Northstar98 said:

And with the totally not biased comment, they were the first to employ composite armour arrays and APFSDS projectiles in their tanks. The first to use a phased array RADAR in a combat aircraft. They made tonnes of milestones in their space program.

Actually that's not correct.

 

British tanks had Chobham armour, which was the first composite armour deployed on an operational AFV (Chieftain). APFSDS is pretty much a dead heat between Russia, the US and UK - the RA 120mm uses a slip ring to reduce spin speed in the rifled tube...

 

But I'm not disputing that Russia, during and post Soviet era, made a lot of innovations in military hardware, and their kit was often more efficient in use of resources (especially computing) through necessity.

[Northstar98]

On 1/25/2021 at 9:14 AM, Blackjack_UK said:

Actually that's not correct.

 

British tanks had Chobham armour, which was the first composite armour deployed on an operational AFV (Chieftain).

 

Actually it is.

 

The first Chieftain to feature "composite" armour (which isn't really composite) is the Chieftain Mk.10, with the stillbrew package (which is just applique RHA layers with small layers of rubber in between - I'll be generous and call this composite (even though it pretty much isn't)), this came in the mid 80s.

 

The Chieftain 900 was just a mock-up/prototype and didn't actually have any composite inserts.

 

And stillbrew is absolutely not chobham, nor was chobham the first composite armour system; chobham in its first iteration was essentially just a composite NERA array, in between 2 RHA layers; that first came on the original M1 Abrams in the early 80s, followed by the Challenger 1 3 years later.

 

The T-64A on the other hand came with a true multi-layered composite UFP and turret front, using a mixture of RHA, glass-reinforced plastic and ceramics - more similar to composite armour seen today. The T-64A predates chobham on both the original M1 Abrams and Challenger 1 by at least a decade...

 

Quote

APFSDS is pretty much a dead heat between Russia, the US and UK - the RA 120mm uses a slip ring to reduce spin speed in the rifled tube...

 

It really wasn't, the first tank to fire APFSDS was the T-62, which is early 60s, it was also the first tank to feature a smoothbore gun.

 

The first British APFSDS projectile was the 105mm L64 in the early 80s (though not sure what it was used on, otherwise it would be the 120mm L23, used on the Chieftain Mk5/4 and onwards and on the Challenger 1), over 20 years after the T-62.

 

The first American APFSDS projectile was the M735 in the late 70s, 17 years after the T-62 (coinciding with the M60A3).

 

America didn't get a smoothbore until the Rheinmetall Rh-120 L/44 (M256) in the mid-80s on the M1A1 Abrams, 24 years after the U-5TS/2A20 on the T-62.

 

You are correct that APFSDS projectiles fired by the L11A5 and L30 use a slip-band to negate the rifling (kinda ironic really), though a rifled gun of equal construction is always going to have a shorter life, and lower muzzle velocity compared to a smoothbore; and with fin-stabilised ammunition, there's not much gained, if anything at all by using a rifled gun* because gyroscopic stabilisation can be achieved by canting the fins on fin stabilised projectiles, which will cause the projectile to roll once it leaves the barrel, approximating the same effect as rifling.

 

 

*The British mostly kept it because 1.) money, 2.) for the use of HESH (for which a fin-stabilised variant hasn't been developed yet, even though HESH is only really useful against legacy RHA only tanks, as well as lightly armoured/soft targets and bunkers - it was originally intended to be a demolition round for reinforced concrete structures, it's basically useless against modern composite armour arrays on MBTs, heck, even spaced armour will defeat it, as will ERA; spall liners will also reduce its effectiveness.

Edited February 2, 2021 by Northstar98

[chromium]

Il 21/1/2021 at 00:37, 3WA ha scritto:

Hey Chromium, I see your a modder.  Don't suppose you could just give us a mod for the Iglas and the FLIR could you?

 

I don't even care if the Igla's just float beneath the wingtip.  Better than getting killed by jets and Apache's.

 

Sadly not, I don' mod modules, I'm adding functionality to dcs world (check in my signature).

[Sh4rk]

On 1/20/2021 at 2:04 PM, chromium said:

 

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.

I was replying to the people that were saying: "we don't need BS3 anymore because Apache is better RWR hellfires yadda yadda".  The minmaxers.

 

It's not about being the better aircraft in any aspect - otherwise we wouldn't have a few of the modules that are less capable than others. We just want an improved simulation of an a bit more developed/modern version of the aircraft we already have - the Ka-50.

[shake307]

Holy hell this forum is all kinds of all over the place.  Wrong info, good info, bad info, out of context info, honest info...  this is fun.  I mean, arguing over who came up with APFSDS tank rounds?  Thought this was a flight sim forum.  Which helo would win a dogfight with another helo?  I mean, DCS is a sandbox.  I say when Apache is released, we will probably find out.  Also, putting single player aside (Battle mission), attack helos would rarely ever fight.  If ever.  I honestly cannot think of one time where attack helos ever fought eachother.  Can anybody?  Seriously, I would love to know if it has ever happened.  I think I may look that up.                                                                                                                            I will just say I am upset the BS3 is on hold.  Really wanted FLIR.  Don't mind the RWR or Fox 2s, but would like to be able to fight at night without needing flares.  I mean, our current Shark can do night stuff, but it can be frustrating.  Keep this going, it is fun.     

[shake307]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theaviationgeekclub.com/attack-helicopter-crews-explain-why-an-attack-helicopter-if-properly-flown-would-defeat-most-fighter-airplanes-in-1v1-air-combat/

 

Just leave this here... 

 

Also, the only thing I can find for helo on helo action was during the Iran-Iraq War.

Edited January 30, 2021 by shake307

[dimitriov]

On 1/31/2021 at 12:35 AM, shake307 said:

 I honestly cannot think of one time where attack helos ever fought eachother.  Can anybody?  Seriously, I would love to know if it has ever happened.  I think I may look that up.                                                                                                

Ehehehehehehehehe

 

I have ouane ! 

 

Iran/Irak war, Ah-1 vs Mi-24. Repeated occurences.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran–Iraq_War

 

See chapter "Differences from other conflicts"

 

And they fought with everything they had : ATGM, canon...... Rockets... Iranians have a very persian sense of humor. 

 

I would really like to get a complete explanation on why exactly is there a principle that such thing is impossible. Technically, a tank is not supposed to end shooting at your logistical truc because your truck is working behind your line... Still, it happens quite often because... Because the truck was not at the right place, or the tank, in any case someone fucked up... So why exactly would helicopters in a big war not encounter each other to discuss rotor type superiority ? ^^

 

I sincerely  think that it's a difference between theory and practice. At war, there always is something screwing up. And at an European scale, it would be surprising for it to never happen. At which moment, in a full scale war, can you plan everything in order to make yourself sure to permanently avoid meeting another helo, while they basically share the exact same purpose on both sides, and rely on staying undetected as much as possible to survive ? Very simple Cold war example : Tank assault vs Defense in the Fulda Gap : Apaches/Ah-1/Bo-105/Gazelles supporting their ground defense against a massive Soviet tank assault supported by... Mi-24, Mi-2, Mi-8..... All of them having to get in range of their targets to shoot. Hundreds of helos on both sides, can you really expect fighters to do something about it ? They're already quite busy dodging SAM and engaging with the ENI fighters. Will you be the guy who says "Gosh, they have helicopters, we can't send ours to support our troops." or "Ok lads, the massive tank assault for which we've trained you and built all your helicopters is ongoing, but there are ENI helos and our fighters are struggling with theirs, so stay parked."

 

Does your tank need in order to operate safely to get recon, infantry, A/A defense ? Yes. Is it supposed to operate in solo, against a superior force which can count on a massive air support ? No. Still, ask Wittmann what he thinks about it. Oh wait, he's dead, then read a book about him ^^ 

 

Helos, tanks, planes etc, all are expendable. 

 

It's not a critic, I'd like to understand cause I don't get it, it's like assuming that your A-10C will never meet a fighter. It's wrong. It MUST NOT meet a fighter. I'm sure everything is made to allow this safety, but can you assume that in real global war, safety will be strong enough as the A/G planes would be the main objective of ENI fighters ? 

 

What's even funnier for me is that it's a very French way of thinking : Everything should work as we planned. We thought this way in 1940 ^^ Dieter and Kurt did not agree. Read "The strange defeat" by Marc Bloch, you'll get a nice sample of all the unplanned things which can happen when something screws up. 

 

A nice anecdote from this book was a French mobile HQ suddenly facing a french tank column in a village, the french commander gets out from his truck and asks the tank officer to leave place... Before realizing that it's a german, not a french tank. I'm 100% sure that during his war classes, someone told the commander that he would never ever face a tank...

 

Nicolas

 

Note : This considering that both Soviet and NATO ever had the logistical capability to engage in a real Fulda Gap scenario, which I really doubt about. 

Edited February 1, 2021 by dimitriov

[Fri13]

On 1/31/2021 at 1:35 AM, shake307 said:

Holy hell this forum is all kinds of all over the place.  Wrong info, good info, bad info, out of context info, honest info...  this is fun.  I mean, arguing over who came up with APFSDS tank rounds?  Thought this was a flight sim forum.  Which helo would win a dogfight with another helo?  I mean, DCS is a sandbox.  I say when Apache is released, we will probably find out.  Also, putting single player aside (Battle mission), attack helos would rarely ever fight.  If ever.  I honestly cannot think of one time where attack helos ever fought eachother.  Can anybody?  Seriously, I would love to know if it has ever happened.  I think I may look that up.

 

There are cases when helicopters has been engaging other targets, helo vs helo, as well helo vs fighter. But the fact is that those would happen IF the scenario for it is possible. And that would be possible in a full war. Mi-24's did fly in the Afghanistan with R-60 missiles, did use them even against ground units. Did the Mujahidin have fighters and attack helos? No... So why the R-60's? Even the Su-27SK manual has how to use the IRST for ground target spotting, ranging and using A-A missiles against ground targets. Crazy those people....

 

If there would come a two even enemies conflict in a same area, both would have their support units in place, both have their ground attack units etc. It is just question that when it would be that helo spots an another helo covering their troops and you just take it out.

  There is reason why Vikhr has the A-A mode in it, a special fragmentation sleeve with proximity fuze that you activate before launch. You have own special modes for fast movers as well helos so you can shoot it at anything that there is.

There is no such thing as "I am a helo, I see a enemy helo, but I am not allowed to engage it by reasons of any....".

 

Quote

I will just say I am upset the BS3 is on hold.  Really wanted FLIR.  Don't mind the RWR or Fox 2s, but would like to be able to fight at night without needing flares.  I mean, our current Shark can do night stuff, but it can be frustrating.  Keep this going, it is fun.     

 

It was never to receive the FLIR. What our KA-50 has lacked from the begin are the Shkval filters for low light, for sunset and sunrise times and few others. You can see them on the manual that just states "Not implemented". Those I wanted to see. Same way as to see the windshield and Shkval sweepers and all water droplets and effects so that you can't see out well and really need to use those things.

 

The RWR would have been nice, considering that in DCS the radar guided weapons are way too effective at low altitudes.

The fighters can see way too easily the helicopters, and now when the F/A-18C Hornet got the GMTI - it has turn to be unrealistically capable. When in reality pilots don't use it as they can't really find anything with it than at the Sea mode, in DCS you don't have ground clutter. You can put vehicles move in the forest and they are spotted on the first sweep there is. Yet the system can't spot the civilian traffic, trains or even large rotating radar masts.

 

Example what your link states: "And as far as Doppler radars seeing rotor-blades, I have hundreds of hours in a 4th gen helicopter that made that statement quite problematic". The fighters GMTI is not amazing, it is not something that you just turn On and in a second you see every single moving target in a 40 nmi distance and 120 degree angle from your position. It requires lots of time, lots of scanning, lots of such good conditions that something can be detected. Easiest are a civilian aircraft driving toward you on a clean highway. The impossible target is the military vehicle that are painted with radar absorbing paints, camouflage nets and of course just simple foliage camouflage. All that effectively hides all the vehicles from the radar, from the FLIR and from the visual spotting as long crew knows what to do and when. And there you can have a MBT rolling toward your troops location and you can't see it in FLIR, you can't see it with radar and you are just left for visually spotting its raised dust or leaving tracks etc.

The similar thing is with helicopters, keep them low and going and the radars can't really find you. But raise 50-100 meters above and advantages are gone.

This is why the RWR is not required as you can fly low and avoid targeting and detection with proper tactics.

 

But regardless of that, if you fly in a area that you don't know is there a SAM.... You are failing by trusting your intelligence.

The IGLA's.... Wouldn't care much if at all really, fancy nice to have toys.... But what I want really is the properly done Shkval, with its low resolution, low dynamic range mushy display. To have a actually really working contrast detection system to lock on ANYTHING that has contrast, and have a properly done tracking too. I want to see the Vikhr correctly modeled, with its fragmentation warhead and proximity fuze.

The President-S would have been nice thing against MANPADS by getting a audible and visual warning where you are being engaged, but that is because you do not really get to fly KA-50 in a realistic environment where you know about where threats are and you have wingmen watching your blind spots as well you looking their sixes.

 

The KA-50 is very capable as is, but it just requires the missing functions implemented, make the Shkval more realistic, make the Vikhr more realistic and finally make the ground units far more smarter. Anti-Tank helicopters are basically useless if you do not have ground troops support and intelligence. They find the targets, they call you and you go to assist what you can. We do not have that interaction with the ground units automatically, they trying to survive and stay hidden and transmit their intelligence forward.

 

But can ED do anything anymore when Vikhr is in active service, the Shkval has the laser designator for the Su-25SM etc. Basically they might be just scrap all the plans all together.

 

Edited February 1, 2021 by Fri13

[shake307]

Well, color me incorrect, Fri13.  I thought we were getting a FLIR for some reason.  Thanks for the clarification.  Indeed, there are some things needing implementation in the Shark.  Regardless of things not quite correct, I still find the KA-50 amazing and quite enjoyable to fly.  It is just so odd and unique.

 

Now, to counter some things about helo on helo combat.  I never said helos will not fight eachother, I said they should not fight eachother.  No combat unit, tactical to strategic level, should ever find themselves up against an equivalent force. If you find yourself in a tactically or strategically "fair" fight, someone messed up pretty bad.  That is the philosophy I am using.  I am familiar with military planning and execution.  At no point has anyone said we will leave some things in the rear because it wouldn't be fair to the enemy.  There are several reasons to not bring full kit, but saying it isn't fair to them aint one of them.  Helos shouldn't fight eachother because one side shouldn't have any air assets left.  Now I admit that is a lot of conjecture, just like Germany shouldn't go through Belgium.  China shouldn't cross the border into North Korea.  But shit can and does happen.  That is why helos are A-A capable.  They shouldn't need the capability, but you never fully know.  War is chaos, and militaries plan for chaos.  That is a very difficult thing to do.

 

TL;DR Never fight fair.  If you do, you could lose.  This is reference to Sun Tzu and the Dicta Boelcke.

[dimitriov]

Perfectly in agreement with everything above

[shake307]

Oh, yeah...  I suppose I shoud add that DCS is not real world.  You should fully expect just about any kind of engagement you can imagine.  Helo on helo can totally happen.  There is even a mission where it is like the first thing you deal with (Battle)

I am paricularly annoyed with some of the Spring Tension Campaign missions.  "That gunship escort you have?  Nah, you shoot at the bad guys in your Hip.  So what if they are Mi-28s, they can't shoot for some damn reason."  Bleh...  I can't even count how many times I asked myself, "Why the hell am I doing this?"

[zerO_crash]

What people don´t understand is the grand scheme of tactics in general. They run alone to AO with their precious aircraft and wonder why they got shot down. "If I died, it must mean that the enemy has a better radar, weapon, aircraft, etc.... I mean, it for sure cannot be that my tactics suck or my battle plan, control of my aircraft, knowledge of what my aircraft excels at and it´s limitations, etc...". IRL, who sees first, usually wins. But you have to add all the other to the formula. Since Ka50 doesn´t have RWR, it does mean that fighting in a SAM/radar-contested area is not it´s primary task. Logic would suggest staying behind the SAM/Fighter umbrella and sniping from 8-10km. That´s just an example of it´s application. One thing is for sure, with the modern SAM´s, manpads and AAA-systems such as Tunguska, you are pretty much dead meat in a helicopter, be a Ka52/Mi28/Apache/Cobra. Those missiles move so fast, that the early warning gives you time to pull ejection handle before it hits you. That´s how much your countermeasures are worth when going in dumb without any proper tactic. Forget any relevant avoidance manoeuvres, as these rockets eat distance like nothing. 

 

The prerogative in this thread is naive, when it talks about this phenomenon of "balance" and "equal units". That´s not real and neither something this sim attempts to replicate...

[Mars Exulte]

On 1/30/2021 at 5:35 PM, shake307 said:

Holy hell this forum is all kinds of all over the place.  Wrong info, good info, bad info, out of context info, honest info...  this is fun.

  Yeah, we're good about that

 

Quote

I honestly cannot think of one time where attack helos ever fought eachother.  Can anybody?  Seriously, I would love to know if it has ever happened.  I think I may look that up. 

  It has happened on rare occasion, but usually a side effect of helos being the only thing present, or neither side having real dominance. There was a Hind that shot down a Hip with an ATGM once in South America, for example.

 

On 1/30/2021 at 5:45 PM, shake307 said:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/theaviationgeekclub.com/attack-helicopter-crews-explain-why-an-attack-helicopter-if-properly-flown-would-defeat-most-fighter-airplanes-in-1v1-air-combat/

 

Just leave this here... 

   Yeaah... in their wet dreams. More like ''a properly flown helo in extremely broken terrain against an improperly flown, borderline mentally handicapped fighter plane''. Unless prevented by RoEs helos would be detected and killed with Fox 3s at a distance, and even if not, unless the fixed winger blundered right over the top of him, he'd come round... and kill him with a Fox 3 or Fox 2. Just like happens in DCS, funny enough.

 

  Unsupported helos, like unsupported literally anything else (including fighters for that matter) have a very short life expectancy. Just like happens in DCS.......

Edited February 2, 2021 by zhukov032186

[shake307]

43 minutes ago, zhukov032186 said:

  Yeah, we're good about that

 

  It has happened on rare occasion, but usually a side effect of helos being the only thing present, or neither side having real dominance. There was a Hind that shot down a Hip with an ATGM once in South America, for example.

 

   Yeaah... in their wet dreams. More like ''a properly flown helo in extremely broken terrain against an improperly flown, borderline mentally handicapped fighter plane''. Unless prevented by RoEs helos would be detected and killed with Fox 3s at a distance, and even if not, unless the fixed winger blundered right over the top of him, he'd come round... and kill him with a Fox 3 or Fox 2. Just like happens in DCS, funny enough.

 

  Unsupported helos, like unsupported literally anything else (including fighters for that matter) have a very short life expectancy. Just like happens in DCS.......

 

I do not think military fighter pilots are borderline mentally handicapped...  They may take offense.  Their egos are a bit fragile...  as proven by that article.  

 

Also, what is wrong with helos using terrain?  Pretty sure that is a top tactic for helos, what with NOE flying and pop up attacks.  But I suppose you are correct.  Kinda like how there is no way a dude that lives in a mud hut with his 50 year old mosin nagant and pile of UXO can cause any trouble for a professional military with high end equipment.

[Mars Exulte]

1 minute ago, shake307 said:

Stuff

  Most the ''exercises'' that have been conducted had restrictive RoEs on the fixed wingers. Nothing's wrong with helos using terrain, that's what they're supposed to do. In rough, broken terrain, they can feasibly hide from radar, but if the ground isn't conducive to ''hiding behind'' they're going to be easily spotted from a distance with nowhere to run. The rotor disc in RL is a big neon ''shoot me'' sign on radar if visible.

 

  Again, just strapping heaters on somebody's helo isn't going to make it a 1337 fighter killin' machine. DCS is not 100% but it's close enough for practical example. Unsupported helos are easily detected and killed from a distance, as is repeatedly demonstrated in DCS unless they actively attempt to hide. Taking potshots at passing pointblank fighters is one thing, you have the element of surprise... but of course, if you miss, he's going to turn around and kill you now that he knows you're there. Helos don't seek out combat with fixed wingers because the scenarios where they can realistically hope to win are pretty specific.