Jump to content

1stBEAST
 Share

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, naizarak said:

imagine using the realism argument while ED is putting iglas on a ka50

 

Relevancy?

 

If we get a 9.12 MiG-29 shall we (unrealistically) give it K-77M because the F/A-18C has AIM-120s?

 

And the Ka-50 ED doing is purely hypothetical (and they seem to be stretching the bounds), I'd much rather we got something more resembling a Ka-50 in it's limited real-life form but hey. The Apache however, is supposed to represent an Apache as used by a specific operator, and that operator's Apaches aren't fitted with Stinger ATAS, it's not that they don't use it, they'd have to make substantial modifications to fit it.


Edited by Northstar98
  • Like 3

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't be better to back to previous state, when we could use weapon mods? ED could keep modules realistic, who need mod would use it.

Just add a menu option for servers or ME - 'Allow weapon mods' on/off switch.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Glow said:

Wouldn't be better to back to previous state, when we could use weapon mods? ED could keep modules realistic, who need mod would use it.

Just add a menu option for servers or ME - 'Allow weapon mods' on/off switch.

 

I mean, I'm fine with mods, you do whatever you like. After all that's what the IC is for.


Edited by Northstar98

Modules I own: F-14A/B, F/A-18C, Supercarrier, F-16CM, AJS-37, F-5E-3, MiG-21bis, Ka-50, A-10C (+ A-10C II), UH-1H, Mi-8MTV2, P-47D, P-51D, FC3, MiG-15bis, Yak-52, CA, C-101, Hawk

Terrains I own: Syria, The Channel, SoH

 

System (RIP my old PC): Dell XPS 15 9570 w/ Intel i7-8750H, NVIDIA GTX 1050Ti Max-Q, 16GB DDR4, 500GB Samsung PM871 SSD (upgraded with 1TB Samsung 970 EVO Plus SSD)

 

VKB Gunfighter Mk.II w. MCG Pro

 

Dreams: https://uk.pcpartpicker.com/list/mBG4dD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree, weapon mods should be made available again. ED must give options to players, not to cut them down.

I don't understand anything in russian except Davai Davai!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, naizarak said:

imagine using the realism argument while ED is putting iglas on a ka50

 

Actually, I'd prefer that one to get R-73s instead of Igla, since there does seem to be evidence that the R-73s were intended to be used on the 1 & 4 stations. By the same token, the Ka-50 isn't exactly in widespread service; whether or not it can mount Iglas is irrelevant since if you stretch it, realistically the helicopter shouldn't be used at all. But until the arrival of the Mi-24P, it isn't like we have a lot of options for an attack helicopter, so we use what we got.

 

My take is that arguing about ATAS for a US Army spec is a wasted effort when it would be better to lobby for another version of the helicopter that does have them. The AH-64DJP for example, which actually has provisions for it, in addition to being a Block II aircraft -- making it a relatively easy parallel move (ignoring the lack of documentation for ATAS). You have to give up CMWS, of course. On the other hand, if you can get enough data, you could make a request for the latest AH-64Es being sold to Qatar, India, Indonesia, Taiwan, South Korea, etc. and have it all!

 

At some point, a line has to be drawn, because at any one point in time the aircraft was potentially considered for employing a huge variety of munitions that there is little data on how it would've functioned with the various fiddly electro-gee-whiz junk in the cheeks. That list could include Sidearm, Sidewinder, Stinger, Starstreak, Harpoon, TOW, Zuni, gunpods of various flavors, Penguin, and probably a number of others that I can't recall off the top of my head. Of these, Sidewinder, Stinger, Starstreak, and TOW were actually tested, but never operationally deployed. It'd be interesting to have them all and I can think of ways they might be implemented, but at the end of the day those would be guesses -- and they would take a ton of development resources.

 

Honestly, I think most players are going to be surprised by how useful the AGM-114L will be in the aerial self defense role. It was just adopted as a SHORAD weapon by the US Army, after all.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

Actually, I'd prefer that one to get R-73s instead of Igla, since there does seem to be evidence that the R-73s were intended to be used on the 1 & 4 stations.

 

'Intended' is your assumption and is not true.  'Tested' may or may not be fact, we don't know.  To date I'm aware of two helicopters which mount typical AAMs, that's the marine Cobra during escort missions and the Mi-24 when someone needs to go after slow moving aircraft.

 

Everything else uses MANPADS, probably for a couple of simple reasons:

* You get more shots

* Less weight

 

In other words, much better bang for your buck in the average mission - the MANPADS often have seekers as good as those of full AAMs, similar range at low altitudes; the warheads are smaller (but perfectly adequate) and they may lack a fuze, but against the intended targets and the fact that you get more shots, I suppose it's a better deal.

Not sure why you'd want to haul a pair of heavy R-73s when they will reduce A2G carriage capacity (your primary mission) or at least degrade performance while not working much better than a MANPADS in a one to one comparison.

  • Thanks 1

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
47 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

'Intended' is your assumption and is not true.  'Tested' may or may not be fact, we don't know.

 

I doubt they were tested outside of hanging them on the Ka-52 for the sales pictures, but I'm no Ka-50 expert either. But seeing as they hung them (even if inert) from Ka-52s 1 & 4, that seems to be a bit more reasonable than a modified Ka-50 wing to have extra pylons for Igla.

 

47 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

Not sure why you'd want to haul a pair of heavy R-73s when they will reduce A2G carriage capacity (your primary mission) or at least degrade performance while not working much better than a MANPADS in a one to one comparison.

 

More for the ability to work better with the HMS and leverage the HOBS capability. If it comes down to R-73 on 1 & 4 versus extra pylons for Iglas, which is more likely to occur in a pinch? Not that it much matters at this point since what's done is done with BS3.

 

The reason I don't mind giving up the primary attack capability for AAMs is simply because I'd task that aircraft with protection for the rest of the flight. It's not ideal and I'd rather have actual fighter cover (which is what the US Army has banked on), but it beats doing the funky chicken under a pair of departing rotor blades. This is what I end up doing with a lot of helicopter scenarios with the Mistral equipped Gazelle due to lack of other options.


Edited by NeedzWD40
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I agree with GGTharos, in the fact that I want more shots and less weight.  I don't want to give up primary slots for anti-armor munitions.

For me, the purpose is not in getting a kill on a jet, but causing him to have to maneuver and break lock on me.  Then, I can dive for cover, and maybe get a better shot at him with a vikher from behind cover ( if I can somehow get a lock ).  The Igla is an emergency "spray and pray" weapon just to get them off of you.

 

And in this game, the jets and heli's target you constantly.  Probably less in Reality.

Try playing the "Battle" mission in the Ka-50 sometime.  Those four Cobra's ignore every tank under them and come straight for you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, 3WA said:

Personally, I agree with GGTharos, in the fact that I want more shots and less weight.  I don't want to give up primary slots for anti-armor munitions.

 

Most of the world agrees with both of you, including Russia. Seeing as how the Ka-52 does get the dedicated Igla stations and many users of the AH-64 are opting for ATAS on the wingtips, it's pretty clear that's the way to go. The Ka-50, unfortunately, lacks these extra stations (as do the AH-64s employed by the US Army), so the choice is either nothing or give up other ordnance for AAMs.

 

For the purpose of discussion, in the Black Shark 3 discussion thread, we have these two posts:

 

 

Thus my position that modified wings for extra hardpoints is pushing the limits, while a reasonable argument can be made that R-73s for the Ka-50 on the 1 & 4 stations could be possible. If such an argument could be made for the Igla on the same stations, I would be open to that as well.

 

18 minutes ago, 3WA said:

And in this game, the jets and heli's target you constantly.  Probably less in Reality.

Try playing the "Battle" mission in the Ka-50 sometime.  Those four Cobra's ignore every tank under them and come straight for you.

 

Strikes me that the winning strategy would be to get them as slow and low as possible over friendly tanks to have them deal with the problem. Further, I doubt that Iglas would be much help in said scenario since flares launched from helicopters have ridiculous chances of success.

 

As a side note, M255 rockets should also be very handy in AA combat against slower foes like helicopters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, 3WA said:

And in this game, the jets and heli's target you constantly.  Probably less in Reality.

Try playing the "Battle" mission in the Ka-50 sometime.  Those four Cobra's ignore every tank under them and come straight for you.

 

I agree that this is very much a DCSism and also a mission design issue.   Under normal circumstances helis should attempt to avoid other helis, and fixed wings as a priority.   There are very few mission profiles where air to air is a thing, as mentioned above.

 

The ME only gives you the option to turn off AA engagements, but it's not like this by default, and there's no way beyond relatively heavy scripting to intelligently decide when to get into an A2A fight and when not to (aka most times).

  • Like 2

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

For the purpose of discussion, in the Black Shark 3 discussion thread, we have these two posts:

 

At this point maybe a mod could move our posts appropriately? 

 

14 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

Thus my position that modified wings for extra hardpoints is pushing the limits, while a reasonable argument can be made that R-73s for the Ka-50 on the 1 & 4 stations could be possible. If such an argument could be made for the Igla on the same stations, I would be open to that as well.

 

I disagree, for two reasons:

1) The new wing doesn't really push anything other than building a heli variant that doesn't exist

2) Even if this variant existed it still wouldn't carry R-73s

There's a limit to the stretch, but that limit is obviously set by ED.

 

And frankly, if you want R-73s so you can DCSism the heli because you want to sling heaters at fighters without having to aim the fuselage, then I'd like ED to immediately implement rotor reflection and tracking.  I'll have a 120 take care of the heli before it ever sees me, I have no need or desire to descend below 20000' if I don't have to.  I'll say it flat out that I don't believe that as helis deserve any useful role in A2A, just like IRL, and any DCSism advantage they get should be countered immediately with the addition of real capabilities to modern jet aircraft.

In the event of an 80's game, R-73s should be denied outright.

I know, I'm some form of a filthy purist.

 

14 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

Strikes me that the winning strategy would be to get them as slow and low as possible over friendly tanks to have them deal with the problem. Further, I doubt that Iglas would be much help in said scenario since flares launched from helicopters have ridiculous chances of success.

 

Helis are notoriously well equipped to decoy everything in DCS.  ED throws heli players plenty of bones.  Either way, IRL and in-game the seeker performance will be similar so the only advantage with the R-73 remains the HOBS shot.

 

14 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

As a side note, M255 rockets should also be very handy in AA combat against slower foes like helicopters.

 

And it used to be a main anti-bomber weapon back in the day as well.  You can also carpet-bomb a heli, no need for a direct hit.

 

So, helis have a lot of reasons to hide and avoid fast-movers and other helis.

  • Like 2

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

At this point maybe a mod could move our posts appropriately?

 

Might have to! Didn't mean to delve that much into the Ka-50.

 

30 minutes ago, GGTharos said:

And frankly, if you want R-73s so you can DCSism the heli because you want to sling heaters at fighters without having to aim the fuselage, then I'd like ED to immediately implement rotor reflection and tracking.

 

Not really so much DCSism as much as saying that if we're going to DCSism, why not reflect on what data is out there for what we do have? The posts cited were pretty convincing to me. Unless the argument is that we're already so far down the rabbit hole that we may as well just put ATAS on the AH-64 because it doesn't really matter. I do agree with rotor reflection and tracking though, that's been an annoying issue.

 

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

I'll have a 120 take care of the heli before it ever sees me, I have no need or desire to descend below 20000' if I don't have to.  I'll say it flat out that I don't believe that as helis deserve any useful role in A2A, just like IRL, and any DCSism advantage they get should be countered immediately with the addition of real capabilities to modern jet aircraft.

 

That's kind of what they figured out IRL anyways. Don't play to the other guy's advantage, and getting down and dirty with a helicopter plays right into his hands. Within DCS, I either end up going point blank with IR missiles or the gun. It's painful to watch the AI try to take down helicopters.

 

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

In the event of an 80's game, R-73s should be denied outright.

I know, I'm some form of a filthy purist.

 

Wouldn't be a Ka-50 for the 80s though. AH-64A kinda sorta-ish, for late 80s. More Mi-24 and AH-1 game there. Would be mighty interesting!

 

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

Helis are notoriously well equipped to decoy everything in DCS.  ED throws heli players plenty of bones.  Either way, IRL and in-game the seeker performance will be similar so the only advantage with the R-73 remains the HOBS shot.

 

AI gets a lot of advantages to go with it, too! AI helicopters can often soak up damage that would take players right out of the fight. Maybe we'll see some improvements to that soon.

 

1 hour ago, GGTharos said:

And it used to be a main anti-bomber weapon back in the day as well.  You can also carpet-bomb a heli, no need for a direct hit.

 

So, helis have a lot of reasons to hide and avoid fast-movers and other helis.

 

Also AGM-65. RB-75 for extra fun.

 

For me, I tend to play helicopters with the assumption that everything flying is going to drop what they're doing and come right after me, players and AI. So I hide behind SAMs and terrain wherever possible -- if I had any form of A/A missile, I'd save it for a last resort.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Whether or not they were actually used is up for debate. Idc about that. Does ED have enough documentation to implement them? Cause I feel that without Stingers, the Apache will be pretty hard-pressed against the Hind and the Black Shark 3,  which both will feature A/A missiles. 

 

Additional,  Apache Air Assault DID have them available.  (Yes I'm aware that the game mentioned is EXTREMELY  arcade. But I figured there must've been at least 0.0001% inkling of truth based in the decision to allow them.).

 

Anyone got any idea about their implementation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also a bit sad that the stinger isnt included but if i have to decide to get the stinger or the missile warner i will take the missile warner.

also the countermeasure system of the longbow is pretty good paired with a decently skilled pilot and the ka-50´s and hinds will have a hard time to hit with there iglas and r60´s

and you also can fight back with guns and hellfires. the hind will get no warning at all if a hellfire is launched at him. at situational awarness in the apache is much better.

after the longbow radar is included you can theoretically detect other choppers from far away and decide what to do. my squadron plans to pair the paches with the kiowa so the kiowa can carry the stingers just in case^^

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First post eh?

Win-10 x64

 

Nvidia RTX2080 (HP Reverb)

Asus Prime X570P

AMD 3800x

32GB G-Skill RipJaw 3600

 

Saitek X-65F and Fanatec Club-Sport Pedals

Using VJoy and UCR to remap Throttle and Clutch into Rudder axis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, since this subject keeps coming up, it's probably about time to write down from start to finish the history of the AH-64 with Stinger, Starstreak, Sidewinder, Sidearm, laser cannons, plasma rifles, and other odd dreams that keep showing up for the Apache (because reasons). Gather around children, and I will tell you a tale of HIGH ADVENTURE!

 

In the 1970s, the Attack Helicopter was turning into a real thing for militaries worldwide. Instead of having typical troop transports perform dual role, purpose-built rotary wing gunships were proving their utility and many militaries saw them as a highly useful asset to have on hand. In the case of NATO, attack helicopters were seen as the key solution toward the Warsaw Pact tank problem: fielding enough quality tanks to beat back a potential armored assault by Warsaw Pact forces was seen as incredibly expensive and time consuming. The counter was seen with helicopter forces fielding ATGMs such as TOW and HOT, which were presumably capable of destroying multiple tanks in one go at the fraction of the cost of a typical main battle tank. In all this, the Soviet Union had their Hind gunship, which was relatively unknown in the west until 1979. The capabilities of such a helicopter were only speculated, and it was theorized that the Hind might present a problem with a turreted gun toward fighter aircraft. Given that helicopters were relatively cheap, it made little sense to spend a lot of resources trying to shoot one down, but the Hind was something new and unknown, so some evaluations followed over how to deal with the problem.

 

Enter J-CATCH. Come to find out, when you play within a maneuverable aircraft's envelope (helicopters) without leveraging your advantages (range, missiles), fast jets tend to not do so well. Attack helicopters were a pesky little problem for NATO, especially if the Warsaw Pact fielded great numbers of more advanced ones in the future (which would probably justify burning up expensive missiles on them, but remember this was the 70s -- disco was a thing). This led to expanded thinking regarding how helicopters might need to defend themselves from fast movers as well as attacking other helicopters. For the USMC, the AH-1J/T/W series became equipped with the AIM-9 series which also opened up the AGM-122; it made sense because it was a weapon in inventory and easy enough to adapt. Doctrinal differences between the USMC and the US Army meant that the Army didn't like the tradeoff with Sidewinder: it was big, bulky, left a huge signature, and didn't offer enough over a lighter missile like Stinger. While the Marines didn't see much issue with trading some firepower for defensive weapons, the Army felt it was a huge deal because killing tanks was the primary mission.

 

The AH-1S/E/Fs that the Army operated were interim aircraft, so they didn't get much love in the 80s; the AH-64 was the big boy on the block and the Army was going to get it, especially after the AH-56 debacle. This led to a lot of speculations, experiments, and tests over what it could carry. Within the realm of A/A missiles, there were a handful of options that eventually got narrowed down to the Sidewinder, Stinger, and Starstreak. All three were tested and evaluated and at some point, the ATAS was on the table. What changed?

 

The Cold War ended. Desert Storm spun up and attack helicopters rarely, if ever, encountered other attack helicopters. Funding was cut and with the jets proving they could take down just about anything that flew, it made little sense to keep investing in a capability that was of limited utility in the face of an air arm equipped just for taking out other aircraft. McAir/Boeing kept touting it as an option for foreign buyers, but the US Army never bought into it outside of tests done in the 80s and 90s. The UK MoD preferred Starstreak, but never chose to equip it either. It wasn't until the JSDF acquired their AH-64Ds that ATAS was officially part of the arsenal. The AH-64E sold to foreign buyers was also equipped with it, though not all opted for it. Some documentation for the AH-64Ev6 suggests that ATAS capability might be added to US Army Apaches, but presumably only for the #1-4 stations and not for the wingtips.

 

Thus, in the end, the only platforms in US Army service that utilized ATAS were the OH-58D (highly disliked by crews) and A/MH-60s used by the 160th. If that changes, it will be for the latest AH-64E models, not the AH-64D Block II circa 2005-2010.

 

ah104.jpg

Sidewinder launch. Note that this is an older model, given the fin shape. In addition, it is launched from the #4 station, not the wingtip which still retains the collision light.

 

star7.jpg

 

Starstreak launch. Note the different launcher shape compared to ATAS.

 

111023b.jpg

 

ATAS as equipped on an AH-64DJP.

 

FireBirdsStingerApache.JPG

ATAS equipped on AH-64As for the film "Fire Birds." This was primarily promotional for the AH-64C by McAir at the time, a variant that would be discarded for an all-AH-64D fleet. Note that these also lack the AVR-2 laser detector set, which wasn't introduced until after ODS.

 

AH-64D on AFSB-I-15 USS Ponce-1.jpg

The fairing on the wingtips of this AH-64 are for the CMWS, the rearward missile launch detection sensors. Detection of missile launches is presumably more important than protection from fixed wing threats or other helicopters, given that both are more likely to be taken down by fixed wing assets rather than rotary wing.

 

As a final note, there is a report floating around regarding airworthiness of the ATAS on the Apache, dated 1989. It is not hard to find and it is distribution statement A, but I will avoid direct linking due to the potential of 1.16. This can give some insight on how ATAS was tested on the AH-64A, including the shortcomings of the system at the time.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, NeedzWD40 said:

the only platforms in US Army service that utilized ATAS were the OH-58D

 

Good write up! I disagree about the "Firebirds" ATAS birds, though.  Also, with regard to the quote above, you left out the OH-58A/C, which also was modified in some units to carry ATAS during ODS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, NeedzWD40 said:

What changed?

 

The Cold War ended. Desert Storm spun up and attack helicopters rarely, if ever, encountered other attack helicopters. Funding was cut and with the jets proving they could take down just about anything that flew, it made little sense to keep investing in a capability that was of limited utility in the face of an air arm equipped just for taking out other aircraft. McAir/Boeing kept touting it as an option for foreign buyers, but the US Army never bought into it outside of tests done in the 80s and 90s.

 

Great read, thanks. Yes, end of the Cold War killed or at least crippled the developement of every type of weapon designed with symmetrical warfare and all out war in mind. After the end of operation Desert Storm mud hut bombing era began.

On the other hand in DCS people want to fight two sides symmetrical all out war, kind of what if Cold War didn't end, because killing some hopeless oposition would be boring, but '2000s equipement was optimized for mud hut bombing. That's why all this propositions to give not historical not realistic equipement and armament.

 


Edited by kseremak
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, AlphaOneSix said:

Also, with regard to the quote above, you left out the OH-58A/C, which also was modified in some units to carry ATAS during ODS.

 

You are most correct! There were a variety of armament systems trialed on the OH-58A/C, but most remained extremely limited or tests. ATAS was common-ish on the 58C in ODS, but the 58A had more than a few power troubles and for the relatively few operating, made not much sense to arm them. 58A also had atrocious tail rotor authority. Nonetheless, several mounts for ATAS were developed in the 80s:

AH-1G and OH-58 Oct 7 1981 CEP 52 AC 972 and 096 Stinger Project005.jpg

OH-58C March 1983 LACT-2.jpg

 

This one is easier to find on ODS aircraft:

68-16775_1.jpg

 

There were a number of other weapons tests on the 58C conducted in the 80s and most didn't reach maturity, likely because of clashes with Apache. Most of these were rolled into the 58D.

 

7 hours ago, kseremak said:

On the other hand in DCS people want to fight two sides symmetrical all out war, kind of what if Cold War didn't end, because killing some hopeless oposition would be boring, but '2000s equipement was optimized for mud hut bombing. That's why all this propositions to give not historical not realistic equipement and armament.

 

With the exception that the AH-64D that we are getting is well-suited, if not more so, for a symmetrical conflict as depicted in DCS. The ASE suite, sensor systems, and weapons are all tailored for fighting a heavy armored force, the same as the AH-64A was. The presence of enemy air doesn't change this purpose or capability, but it does demand closer coordination with friendly aerial assets. If you spy enemy air in your operations area, then you should be calling for CAP and/or ADA assets. Engaging such in your helicopter should only be as a last resort. Alternatively, you should be working with helicopters such as the Gazelle with Mistral or OH-58D with ATAS to deal with these potential threats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Wags locked and pinned this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...