Mi-24 Facing the reality.

[3WA]

Surprised they are going to put R-60's on it.  Would love to see Igla's myself.  Would also like to see stingers on the new Apache.

 

We heli's have to be able to defend ourselves from the "Metas", especially on the public servers.

[lmp]

Wrong thread, please delete.

Edited April 17, 2021 by lmp

[3WA]

On 4/14/2021 at 4:09 AM, Dr.SquirrelBoy12 said:

it just doesn't have super compelling gameplay in many areas. 

THIS.

[Korshtal]

On 4/17/2021 at 4:57 PM, 3WA said:

Surprised they are going to put R-60's on it.  Would love to see Igla's myself.  Would also like to see stingers on the new Apache.

 

We heli's have to be able to defend ourselves from the "Metas", especially on the public servers.

 

Unfortunately you're going to be left hanging in both of these items. The Russian devs said in their January interview with HeliSimmer that the R-60M was the only air to air missile coming to the Hind, as the Igla V was an "exotic loadout". And wasn't worth their time to simulate. However with significant closure rate I can see the R-60M ending up being quite a threat to fast movers in a self defense situation.

 

As for the Apache: There will be no stingers. Plain and simple, the American Block II+ AH-64D was never equipped with stingers, and it's been confirmed by various ED employees that it will remain that way in DCS. A shame, yes but it does give the upcoming Kiowa another niche to fill in DCS to separate it from the Apache.

 

I personally look forward to the day when many Hoggit-visit Hornet drivers who are interested in no helicopter but the Apache are met with the rude awakening that they get no air to air self protection and A-A hellfires are no sidewinder.

[3WA]

Yeah, when the heli's have no air-defense, I lose about half my interest in them.  Don't know if I will ever buy another heli unless they have air defenses.  You just get SLAUGHTERED by jets on the servers.  Vhiker on the Ka-50 is absolutely useless against fast movers, and rarely effective against other heli's.  You have to set it to ground moving target fuse mode because the splash damage is non - existent.  America seems to be stupid not to equip their heli's with air defense.  All the other countries they export to sure seem to be interested in it.  Especially, Stinger and Igla, since a lot more can be carried.  R-60 takes up too much space that could have been used for anti-armor.  Air defense should be for DEFENSE, not attack.  R-60 seems like more of an attack role.

Edited April 20, 2021 by 3WA

[IcedVenom]

On 4/17/2021 at 11:29 AM, Mr.Scar said:

 

Totally agree. Honestly, helos in DCS are my bread and butter now. Before i started learning the Huey i was jumping around like crazy between the F-14, F-16, F-18, F-15, Mig-29, Su-27, Harrier, Mirage and hell knows what more in order to find that perfect airframe for everything. I stuck with the Hornet for around one month and generally got bored with it. Then i moved to the A-10 and this is where I have realized that ground pounding is the thing for me, but there was still something missing. So i have tried the helos. Huey, Mi-8, Ka-50 and now pre-ordered the Mi-24

 

Truth is i dont give a damn about fast movers anymore. Spinning up the rotor, hugging tree lines, doing strafing runs etc. this is what gives me the goosebumps. I dont care about which aircraft is META according to multiplayer standards. I only care which airfract gives me a big smile when i start it up. And those aircraft are helos for me. In the end we all have our own reasons why we fly, but I do think ED is giving us plenty of options so that everyone can find that sweetspot for themselves.

 

As for the Mi-24, I am no expert about Soviet tactics. But I know one thing. When I look at the Mi-24 i know its a beast that does not joke around and was built to execute brute force by hammering hard the enemy ranks. And this is something I intend to do.

 

If that's what you like then buy Viggen

[Mr.Scar]

39 minutes ago, IcedVenom said:

If that's what you like then buy Viggen

I have the Viggen, but I prefer Helos

[Wychmaster]

vor 43 Minuten schrieb 3WA:

America seems to be stupid not to equip their heli's with air defense.  All the other countries they export to sure seem to be interested in it.

As far as I know, America relies on air superiority. If you own the skies, there is nothing left your helicopters need stingers for. In case there are still other helicopters, hellfires will do the trick and to get rid of enemy jets you simply take cover and let you airforce buddies handle them. So stingers would be dead weight in 99,9% of the time.

 

To my knowledge, this approach is unique to the US since no other country can afford (maybe china) to maintain such a large airforce that guarantees your air superiority over almost all other countries. Hence, other countries are interested in AA missiles on their choppers while the US isn't.

 

In DCS, the situation depends on which server you play but I am honestly not sure if stingers would be a real game changer and might not give you false confidence in your self-defense capabilities. You would still not stand a chance engaging a half way decent fighter pilot. In real life, a fighter pilot might be scared by some stingers coming his way. In DCS, I pretty much doubt it. And other helicopters,... I am not sure if hellfires wouldn't be the better option since they aren't distracted by flares.

[S. Low]

9 hours ago, 3WA said:

Yeah, when the heli's have no air-defense, I lose about half my interest in them.  Don't know if I will ever buy another heli unless they have air defenses.  You just get SLAUGHTERED by jets on the servers.  Vhiker on the Ka-50 is absolutely useless against fast movers, and rarely effective against other heli's.  You have to set it to ground moving target fuse mode because the splash damage is non - existent.  America seems to be stupid not to equip their heli's with air defense.  All the other countries they export to sure seem to be interested in it.  Especially, Stinger and Igla, since a lot more can be carried.  R-60 takes up too much space that could have been used for anti-armor.  Air defense should be for DEFENSE, not attack.  R-60 seems like more of an attack role.

 

Why would we waste time, money, equipment (more than we usually do anyways) on equipping a vehicle for something it isn’t meant to do? We have a gigantic airforce and navy to take care of air superiority. There’s simply no reason to dilute the Apache’s mission.

 

You get rekt on multiplayer servers because you’re trying to fly vulnerable assets into enemy territory without cover or plan or anything.

 

You’re  going to need to either play single player like me, or helo-focused servers, or if you’re doing some objective on air quake servers then you presumably need to coordinate air cover with some fast movers. “Hey can you loiter in grid 1234? I need top cover while I do X” (sorry I don’t know what the objectives are online lol).

 

I don’t think America as a nation is wrong in the loadouts for the Apache simply because you are expecting to use it in a way that it would almost never be used 

[Korshtal]

49 minutes ago, Relic said:

Why would we waste time, money, equipment (more than we usually do anyways) on equipping a vehicle for something it isn’t meant to do? We have a gigantic airforce and navy to take care of air superiority. There’s simply no reason to dilute the Apache’s mission.

 

You get rekt on multiplayer servers because you’re trying to fly vulnerable assets into enemy territory without cover or plan or anything.

 

You’re  going to need to either play single player like me, or helo-focused servers, or if you’re doing some objective on air quake servers then you presumably need to coordinate air cover with some fast movers. “Hey can you loiter in grid 1234? I need top cover while I do X” (sorry I don’t know what the objectives are online lol).

 

I don’t think America as a nation is wrong in the loadouts for the Apache simply because you are expecting to use it in a way that it would almost never be used 

 

This exactly. The AH-64D exists in the same world as a bajillion vipers/lightnings/mudhens to protect it. You have to remember that attack helicopters were never intended to be operated in the same theater/time where hostile air would see you as a major threat, they should be focused on your own fast movers coming to get them. It makes sense for a scout helicopter like the Kiowa to have ATAS in the event that some random Syrian fitter or hind or whatever gets too close while they're out doing their scouting thing, but for a dedicated attack platform it makes much less sense. I'm not aware how weight/power limited is the apache is, but adding a bunch of missiles certainly isn't going to help that.

 

10 hours ago, 3WA said:

Yeah, when the heli's have no air-defense, I lose about half my interest in them.  Don't know if I will ever buy another heli unless they have air defenses.  You just get SLAUGHTERED by jets on the servers.  Vhiker on the Ka-50 is absolutely useless against fast movers, and rarely effective against other heli's.  You have to set it to ground moving target fuse mode because the splash damage is non - existent.  America seems to be stupid not to equip their heli's with air defense.  All the other countries they export to sure seem to be interested in it.  Especially, Stinger and Igla, since a lot more can be carried.  R-60 takes up too much space that could have been used for anti-armor.  Air defense should be for DEFENSE, not attack.  R-60 seems like more of an attack role.

 

 

As far as the Igla, I don't think that's a very valid point at all due to the fact that the hind only has one method of mounting missile-type weapons; on the double racks (or something very similar) that the sturm/ataka exist on. There is no fancy wingtip pylon for you to attach an R-60M/Igla V to anyway so why not put a better missile in the same place? You could also go double-ugly if the game allows you to, with four ATGMs on the wingtip pylons, two rocket pods on the inner pylons, and one double R-60M rack on one middle pylon, and some other store on the other inner pylon (Probably an ATGM.) Unfortunately the Vikhr missiles suffer the same disease as all air to ground coded weapons: they do pitiful amounts of damage to air vehicles. I've shot a parked hind with 40+ 30mm, a Vikhr, and 6+ rockets and it still wasn't destroyed. I'm hoping to see some major improvements to that kind of things as helicopters increase in prevalence. 

[Mars Exulte]

Just to throw in a point I have yet to see actually mentioned.

 

  Something you guys need to keep in mind when talking about R-60s/Sidewinders on helos. An AAM on a helo does not equal a AAM on a jet.

 

  You are going to be flying much slower, much lower, firing at a receding target flying 3-4x your speed or more. This will severely reduce the accuracy and speed of your missile, and as a result its overall effectiveness.

 

  If you are thinking somehow a heater is going to let you blunder around in the open without friendly air cover, you're going to be reallllllly disappointed. All that stuff you read about ''helos get air kills against fighters'' presupposes two things : #1, most importantly, the helo is not blundering around like an idiot, and #2 that the fighter's RoEs prohibit using BVR missiles on it.

 

 Online

  #1 is extremely common

  #2 is not a factor

  #3 helos get repeatedly molested

[3WA]

1 hour ago, Mars Exulte said:

Something you guys need to keep in mind when talking about R-60s/Sidewinders on helos. An AAM on a helo does not equal a AAM on a jet.

 

  You are going to be flying much slower, much lower, firing at a receding target flying 3-4x your speed or more. This will severely reduce the accuracy and speed of your missile, and as a result its overall effectiveness.

Exactly.  Which is why I am for Stinger / Igla.

 

And yeah, I'm not for offensive type AAM, unless you can figure out a good ambush attack.  Of course, if they're going that slow and close, I'll probably risk a Vhiker shot.  AAM's on a heli should be for defense, SHTF moments.  There's very little to hide behind in the the simple DCS landscape.

Edited April 20, 2021 by 3WA

[Fri13]

On 4/20/2021 at 8:11 AM, Korshtal said:

 

Unfortunately you're going to be left hanging in both of these items. The Russian devs said in their January interview with HeliSimmer that the R-60M was the only air to air missile coming to the Hind, as the Igla V was an "exotic loadout". And wasn't worth their time to simulate. However with significant closure rate I can see the R-60M ending up being quite a threat to fast movers in a self defense situation.

 

I don't really get the wishes to see a IGLA instead a proper A/A missile. As you have just about 30 seconds time to launch IGLA once you activate the seeker, then the battery does and it is useless.

 

R-60 you have nitrogen reserve for 30 minutes after activation.

 

The R-60 is more agile for close maneuvers, but slower as it is fired from slow to stationary position.

 

But if the IGLA is technically possible loadouts, then it should be there.

Leave the politics and religion out of the simulator and concentrate to produce technically proper simulator and let mission designers make their politics and religion decisions...

 

These ED double standards are not nice.

They don't care about technical, historic or any facts but it comes to just their politics.

 

Example:

- Our F-16CM is mixture between tape 4.2 and 5.1 because they wanted to add AGM-154.

- The F-16 shouldn't have LAU-88 launcher for triple AGM-65.

- F/A-18C has a AGM-62 that was removed from inventory 10 years earlier, doesn't exist whole weapon in 2005.

- USMC/USN F/A-18C Lot 20 was only using a AN/AAS-38 old targeting pods in 2005 and they didn't have ATFLIR or LITENING as those went to super hornets or D models.

- Our F/A-18C and F-16CM has a AGM-65E2/L that is capable be launched for self-designation instead just 2nd party designate targets like older AGM-65E, and that improved missile came to production in 2011.

 

On 4/20/2021 at 8:11 AM, Korshtal said:

As for the Apache: There will be no stingers. Plain and simple, the American Block II+ AH-64D was never equipped with stingers, and it's been confirmed by various ED employees that it will remain that way in DCS. A shame, yes but it does give the upcoming Kiowa another niche to fill in DCS to separate it from the Apache.

 

In the Apache episode in fighter pilot podcast it was said that all american apaches are capable operate with stingers, they just don't carry them when no need.

 

https://youtu.be/Q-AzSGRAza4

 

On 4/20/2021 at 8:11 AM, Korshtal said:

I personally look forward to the day when many Hoggit-visit Hornet drivers who are interested in no helicopter but the Apache are met with the rude awakening that they get no air to air self protection and A-A hellfires are no sidewinder.

 

I look forward when the fighters can't detect the helicopters so easily and would really have challenge to fight at them....

Now they just point radar in the direction and "there it is!".

 

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

 

"And as far as Doppler radars seeing rotorblades, I have hundreds of hours in a 4th gen helicopter that made that statement quite problematic.’"

 

So simply put, Apache should have stingers option, and Mi-24 should as well get IGLA option if it is technically correct.

 

And ED should stop to boxing arguments for specific year of modeling as they can't even follow their own argument about that. Instead stick to technical facts like if a module models software S2 that service time is between 1998-2007 then anything that is technically compatible with it is simulated regardless the year.

But if something requires S2+ or S3 to be technically usable, then it is left out.

 

The DCS problem is that all radar equipped fighters spot helicopters way too easily. Why they can utilize those crazy long range sniping even when helicopter is clearly in the clutter.

[Korshtal]

9 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

 

In the Apache episode in fighter pilot podcast it was said that all american apaches are capable operate with stingers, they just don't carry them when no need.

 

https://youtu.be/Q-AzSGRAza4

 

I've seen several former apache drivers say that they're not capable of carrying them (even though the general consensus is that the electrical hardware is there), and ED's decision to not include it makes perfect sense.

 

9 hours ago, Fri13 said:

So simply put, Apache should have stingers option, and Mi-24 should as well get IGLA option if it is technically correct.

 

"Technically correct" doesn't really mean "should be simulated." ED's team that's working on the Mi-8 and Mi-24 seem to have much different standards than the Hornet/Viper teams when it comes to what should and shouldn't be there. The Mi-8MTV never saw use of the S-5 or S-13 rockets, and while it's possible to use them IRL, it's not simulated because nobody ever did it. Same for the Igla, it was possible, but not worth it to track down documents and info regarding it when it was such a niche item. You have to remember that if legally acquirable documentation (not just words from a former pilot, doesn't cut it) doesn't exist for a feature or item they cannot implement it, even if it's common knowledge.

[M1Combat]

I've used a shark a decent bit on blue flag etc and when there is a GCI the KA50 is a SUPER effective weapon.  Slower...  But I would say just as effective as the A10C (but not the CII carrying 579,000 APKWS rockets...)

 

Just check in...

 

The GCI will call air support for the shark and allow you to get in position and clear a farp for a UH60/Mi8/Hind to come in and drop troops to take it...

 

Yeah...  You launch in a shark with no support you're f****d...

 

Don't do that.

Same with any Heli.

 

Yeah...  it means you have to have a GCI and CAP willing to play the game with you...  but when you do...  Effing brilliant stuff I tell you what...

[Stratos]

Human CGI you mean?

[Korshtal]

15 minutes ago, Stratos said:

Human CGI you mean?

Better question: Why would he not mean Human GCI?

[VampireNZ]

On 4/20/2021 at 6:46 PM, Wychmaster said:

As far as I know, America relies on air superiority. If you own the skies, .....

 

On 4/21/2021 at 4:25 AM, Korshtal said:

 

This exactly. The AH-64D exists in the same world as a bajillion vipers/lightnings/mudhens to protect it. .....

 

Just to play devils advocate, the first shots of Operation Desert Storm were taken by AH-64 Apache helicopters - without air superiority or a bajillion vipers etc. These attacks made a hole for nearly 100 allied aircraft to 'gain' air superiority. The F-111 & F-117's that were also airborne at the time were hardly 'controlling the skies' for the helicopter's safe operation, so Apaches are not always used in totally safe airspace - just sayin.

 

Apache Attack

 

Now I am not saying that the Apache is enemy-aircraft proof or anything silly like that - it is a slow moving chopper at the end of the day...you just need to utilise it sensibly.

[Fri13]

11 hours ago, Korshtal said:

I've seen several former apache drivers say that they're not capable of carrying them (even though the general consensus is that the electrical hardware is there), and ED's decision to not include it makes perfect sense.

 

Sure, if they don't even train for it, then you are not going to use it. But that doesn't change the fact of the technical capability rule. 

But that is politics. Nothing more. It is someone somewhere making a decision that what are the allowed loadout and nothing else is allowed to be done - even if things would technically be possible and all required stuff is in the warehouse just in case.  And that shouldn't matter what is politics in reality, as that is for mission designer to decide.

 

11 hours ago, Korshtal said:

"Technically correct" doesn't really mean "should be simulated."

 

It actually means exactly that.

 

If a 30 mm M230 chain gun is 30 mm, it hell is not going to shoot 25 mm shells from it. Even when it is 30 mm caliber, it is not exchangeable with the GAU-8 caliber.

Why? Because technical facts are only thing that matters.

 

The idea of the simulation is that you can do stuff that wouldn't otherwise be done, you can try new things. You can test and make a evaluation before doing something in practice.

A lot of things change when conditions change - politics changes, enemy changes, terrain changes etc. What is technically possible should be right there in first place. If something is not technically possible, then it is not there.

 

(So "technically possible" doesn't mean that "Yeah, technically we could little tweak that pylon so we can mount the HOT3 missile launcher on it, but it would take time to program a new FCS for it. It means that what is possible by already designed and tested features that works). 

 

11 hours ago, Korshtal said:

ED's team that's working on the Mi-8 and Mi-24 seem to have much different standards than the Hornet/Viper teams when it comes to what should and shouldn't be there.

 

Really?

 

11 hours ago, Korshtal said:

The Mi-8MTV never saw use of the S-5 or S-13 rockets, and while it's possible to use them IRL, it's not simulated because nobody ever did it.

 

So they don't seem to have.... Technically possible features should be simulated. Let the politics go to the mission designer story.

 

11 hours ago, Korshtal said:

Same for the Igla, it was possible, but not worth it to track down documents and info regarding it when it was such a niche item.

 

And here we come to situation again about what is "a worth" to do a simulation to its details...

ED did huge effort to model ATFLIR for a Hornet even when it shouldn't be using it. A feature that was pushed and moved through whole EA phase until now in 2.7 version that it came out. A extremely niche feature. 

And then in other side of ED it is again "not worth to do that niche thing there".

 

11 hours ago, Korshtal said:

You have to remember that if legally acquirable documentation (not just words from a former pilot, doesn't cut it) doesn't exist for a feature or item they cannot implement it, even if it's common knowledge.

 

Please, that argument has no ground to stand. 

Or are you ready to remove majority of the game weapons? 

 

We know nothing about AIM-120 guidance system and logic. We know nothing about R-27 seekers logic and capabilities, even the flight capabilities are unknown.

The IFF system is well documented in unclassified materials that what are the principles and logic in systems, but we do not know codes and encryptions and all minor details that are irrelevant for a simulator.

 

ED works so much around "We don't know" and implement things just based to words of the pilots or guesses that no one can ever validate as they are not public information made by ED. And many things don't need to acquire official documentations and all specific technical data as a lot can be done with educated guesses when things get very undocumented (and no, that doesn't mean that one can just imagine things, as that is not what "educated guess" means. It means that when you have enough various information and evidence that doesn't exactly tell and you have information from the history and whole genre, you can make excellent hypothesis based to known systems, and it is almost always better than doing nothing because 5% of the information is not known but 95% is). 

And that is the problem that these goalposts are moved between the project and time, and that is the problem. No consistency.

 ED claims that they only use unclassified and public sources, yet they have no where a place where they have all these sources, files and all publicly accessible so anyone can go and recheck their argument or source of modeling. Yet they demand that anyone who is suggesting anything should only use a public unclassified documentation or otherwise it gets removed. 

But how would they otherwise even go to model anything when they don't really known much at all in many critical important main features like a A/A missile for a Air Superiority Fighter?

 

Like example if ED knows the 3D model for the IGLA (as it does) and it main specifications (as it does) from even unclassified sources and history, it doesn't take much to actually know how to model the IGLA launcher tubes from photographs to pylon. It is known how missile behave differently when shoulder launched and fired from the move, that is the physics part really.

The seeker function is known, the battery requirement is known, and based to everything it is known that you need to energize the weapon so that missile does it own known thing and get to point that thing at the target as known. And if SME could help with the cockpit logic part that how it is launched and is there something extra panels or so. Like one doesn't need to get a blueprints or technical drawings that how a system is really wired and what color is each wire and what voltage is moving where or what kind a electronic signal is sent from system to missile for launch etc. (Again, remember the AIM-120 or R-27).

 

Getting something 50-80% correct and rest with educated guess is better than scrap everything because specifications for one bolt is unknown for time being. If errors are found in the future, they can be changed and fixed. The things can be revisited in the future with the more detailed information.  

 

 

[Fri13]

5 hours ago, VampireNZ said:

 

 

Just to play devils advocate, the first shots of Operation Desert Storm were taken by AH-64 Apache helicopters - without air superiority or a bajillion vipers etc. These attacks made a hole for nearly 100 allied aircraft to 'gain' air superiority.

 

But...but but.... They didn't know that Apaches were there so they were not targeted.... but but but.... 

 

5 hours ago, VampireNZ said:

The F-111 & F-117's that were also airborne at the time were hardly 'controlling the skies' for the helicopter's safe operation, so Apaches are not always used in totally safe airspace - just sayin.

 

F-117 is a bomber regardless its classification as fighter. Not capable to perform any A/A kind things than carry just couple bombs. 

The F-111 was a bomb truck as well, with maybe capability carry AIM-9 (don't know, more knowledgably people do).

 

So basically Apache's were totally alone down there. 

 

5 hours ago, VampireNZ said:

Now I am not saying that the Apache is enemy-aircraft proof or anything silly like that - it is a slow moving chopper at the end of the day...you just need to utilise it sensibly.

 

The helicopters like Mi-24 and such are in danger from being shot by fighters. Nothing changes that. But how to get to that situation that danger becomes a high risk and that risk will happen? That is more about mission and helicopter crew to do.

It is not like when a helicopter is flying NOE that it is visible to every fighter that just happens to have radar beam hitting at them. It is different thing to fly below 50 meters from the ground in ground clutter than it is to fly 150-200 meters from the ground or even higher. 

 

Like in the Afghanistan the Mi-24's were operating freely at the high altitude as enemy did not have fighters to threaten them. But they were very well designed to operate in a AirLand war where they need to move quickly behind the enemy main forces and engage the enemy troops at rear, support the landed infantry there and then get out or continue fighting. 

And that is where the enemy has easily tactical fighters presence to operate after short while. 

Similar thing is with the Apache and AH-1 and so on. Designed to get over the front line to enemy side to operate there without ground support.

 

The Mi-24 is like the A-10 for russian army aviation, but they do have their own Su-25 as well there. But the Mi-24 can operate lower and be tactically utilized totally different manner. 

[Mr.Scar]

4 hours ago, Fri13 said:

The Mi-24 is like the A-10 for russian army aviation, but they do have their own Su-25 as well there. But the Mi-24 can operate lower and be tactically utilized totally different manner. 

 

Yep. Just to add something i found and broaden the perspective of how it was utilized.

 

"The Mi-24s not only protected helicopter troop assaults and supported ground actions; they also protected convoys, using rockets with flechette warheads to drive off ambushes, performed strikes on predesignated targets, and engaged in "hunter-killer" sweeps. The hunter-killer Mi-24s operated in pairs at minimum, more often groups of four or eight, to provide mutual fire support. The Mujahideen learned to move mostly at night to avoid the gunships, and in response the Soviets trained their Mi-24 crews in night-fighting, dropping parachute flares to illuminate potential targets for attack. The Mujahideen quickly caught on and scattered as quickly as possible when Soviet target designation flares were lit nearby."

 

And about the A-10 comparison:

 

"The Mi-24 was popular with ground troops, since it could stay on the battlefield and provide fire as needed, while "fast mover" strike jets could only stay for a short time before heading back to base to refuel."

 

Source: https://military.wikia.org/wiki/Mil_Mi-24#Soviet_war_in_Afghanistan_.281979.E2.80.931989.29

 

I don't know how accurate this wiki is, but it does provide some interesting insight I think to potential tactics. And at least for me, it makes a lot of sense. I read the whole page a few days ago, and when going through this forum topic  i thought id share what i found. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Mr.Scar

[Quadg]

When I was a lad in the 80's the army air corp reckoned that attack helicopter pilots would have a life expectancy of 40 minutes. 

If the cold war ever went hot in Germany.

that includes apache and hind.

 

That's because of all the manpads, radar controlled SPAAG and SAM systems.

 

and yet they kept on making lynx helicopters. (armed with TOW)

 

with the increase in smart weapons I bet the number is lower now. for a near peer total war.

 

this is the reason helicopters gave up speed for defence and switched to hiding as much as possible.

to give them an extra 10 minutes

[Korshtal]

10 hours ago, Fri13 said:

 

Really?

 

 

So they don't seem to have.... Technically possible features should be simulated. Let the politics go to the mission designer story.

They most certainly do, if you go back and read the Mi-24 interview with HeliSimmer most of the questions were regarding things that were "possible" to be mounted on the helicopter, and most of the answers from the team were "No, it's not worth doing" or "That never really happened". It has nothing to do with politics. It's clear that the Russian team has a different standard for what the simulation should or shouldn't include over the teams working the F-16 and F-18 projects who stretch what's possible with features.

 

10 hours ago, Fri13 said:

And here we come to situation again about what is "a worth" to do a simulation to its details...

ED did huge effort to model ATFLIR for a Hornet even when it shouldn't be using it. A feature that was pushed and moved through whole EA phase until now in 2.7 version that it came out. A extremely niche feature. 

And then in other side of ED it is again "not worth to do that niche thing there".

That's.... entirely untrue. The LITENING II pod is only ever used by USMC and Spanish land based hornet squadrons. It's not rated for carrier use and was the primary TGP used for the Legacy Hornets as a replacement for the NITE HAWK pod. In all reality, the ATFLIR should have been the first targeting pod made available for the Hornet and is the exact opposite of a niche feature. This argument sounds like you have no clue what you're talking about regarding the history of the Hornet.

 

10 hours ago, Fri13 said:

Please, that argument has no ground to stand. 

Or are you ready to remove majority of the game weapons? 

 

We know nothing about AIM-120 guidance system and logic. We know nothing about R-27 seekers logic and capabilities, even the flight capabilities are unknown.

The IFF system is well documented in unclassified materials that what are the principles and logic in systems, but we do not know codes and encryptions and all minor details that are irrelevant for a simulator.

There are plenty of guesses and abstractions when it comes to various systems, but you don't seem to understand that if ED uses or guesses what is classified material from the United States, that's going to be espionage charges for ED, and literally anybody the government can pin a conviction on for supplying that info, and in Russia you're likely to disappear for something like that. "It's not worth" isn't only "It is not necessary for the simulation" but is also "The KGB/CIA are going to be outside my house at 3AM for this."

 

Politics has everything to with this.

ED and most developers are alright with skipping on features that they have to guess on that for both that reason, and the general reaction of the community when you guess and are wrong. (See Mirage 2000C.)

[Fri13]

43 minutes ago, Korshtal said:

They most certainly do, if you go back and read the Mi-24 interview with HeliSimmer most of the questions were regarding things that were "possible" to be mounted on the helicopter, and most of the answers from the team were "No, it's not worth doing" or "That never really happened". It has nothing to do with politics.

 

Neither are answers for question, is something technically possible or not. 

"That never really happened" is a reply for politics that even if something would technically be possible - it simply can have been denied by politics.

"No, it's not worth doing" doesn't either say anything about is something technically possible or not. 

 

 

Quote

That's.... entirely untrue. The LITENING II pod is only ever used by USMC and Spanish land based hornet squadrons.

 

The LITENING II pods were used by the USMC Harriers and F/A-18D Hornets in 2005, not by the F/A-18C.

Even in the 2006 the USN and USMC had not made a decision that what pod (LITENING or ATFLIR) they will take to replace the Nitehawk, what was their sensor.

We have USN/USMC Hornet modeled in the game, not the Spanish. 

 

Quote

It's not rated for carrier use and was the primary TGP used for the Legacy Hornets as a replacement for the NITE HAWK pod. In all reality, the ATFLIR should have been the first targeting pod made available for the Hornet and is the exact opposite of a niche feature. This argument sounds like you have no clue what you're talking about regarding the history of the Hornet.

 

Sounds like you don't know what the commanders has claimed in front of the congress in 2005... Witnessed that there has not been those pods for the legacy C hornets.

ED wanted just to give Hornet something special so ATFLIR regardless it was not available for it. They did give it the LITENING pod because it was already done in the A-10C, even when it was not available for it. Instead giving the correct and properly fitting Nitehawk targeting pod, they ignored the 2005 year and went to give them the options that were available past 2005. 

 

Quote

There are plenty of guesses and abstractions when it comes to various systems, but you don't seem to understand that if ED uses or guesses what is classified material from the United States, that's going to be espionage charges for ED, and literally anybody the government can pin a conviction on for supplying that info, and in Russia you're likely to disappear for something like that. "It's not worth" isn't only "It is not necessary for the simulation" but is also "The KGB/CIA are going to be outside my house at 3AM for this."

 

So please explain again how they are going to model the AIM-120, R-27, AIM-9X and all the others in the game without guesses?

 

Quote

Politics has everything to with this.

 

I thought You said that "It has nothing to do with politics."

 

Quote

ED and most developers are alright with skipping on features that they have to guess on that for both that reason, and the general reaction of the community when you guess and are wrong. (See Mirage 2000C.)

 

So are ED going to remove the AIM-120, AIM-9X, R-27 and all those because they are based to educated guesses? The community has already been on their throat's for years, so are they going to skip those?

 

How much we know about Ataka missile guidance frequencies and jamming possibilities?

How much we really get simulated in the R-60 seekers?

 

The benefit of the Mi-24P is that it is so old that you can make most of it as it is deemed as obsolete already. 

Edited April 22, 2021 by Fri13

[3WA]

Lol, the US Government doesn't come after anyone for "guesses".  I doubt if Russia does either.  Their new "Law" is just chutzpa.  Simulators have been doing guesses for YEARS.

If governments cared about sims, ARMA would NEVER have been.  Hell, I remember playing the "super secret" F117 Night Hawk sim back in the 90's.