Target Acquisition...

What is the fastest method of target acquisition...particularly at night? Without having a radar to locate and lock onto targets, I'm finding visual location and acquisition with the SKVAL to be painstakingly slow. Moreover, at night, when I have my NVG kit loaded and no FLIR system with the SKVAL, I've found that using Vikrs or other guided munitions is pretty much out of the question.

More and more, even in day time, I'm finding that I'm relying on unguided munitions to get the job done. Rockets, gun pods, etc. I'd like to use guided rockets more often, but I'm finding that in combat, I just don't have the time to 1)locate the target, 2) lock-it up with the SKVAL and 3) engage...

Am I doing something wrong, or missing the boat somewhere, or is this just the reality/limitation of the Ka50?

Thanks...

Avoid night combat unless you have support from vehicles with illumination flares.

The Ka-50 is not meant to do combat at night. The NVGs are there to help you navigate without smacking into something uh, ground-ish :D

Also, from your description it seems like you're just trying to react to things shooting at you, or things that just pop out really close.

Don't do that. Extend away and set up a run-in after you're safe.

Also, pre-plan. Don't just fly into a situation and expect to shoot back at what's shooting you up ... plan your ingress, the distance or feature from which you will turn back if the enemy has missiles, and stick to it.

Don't fly into the enemy. Stop well ahead, hover, scout, then scoot, and repeat.

I read Kamov was not pleased from Merkurij NightVision pod but this would be better than poor gogles... Wasn't Merkurij implemented into normal Shkval during tests to prevent too large size before putting it into Ka-50 nose? This pod was giving about 3-5 km of see as far I know...

It is old technology - at this point you can get a much better performing (and lighter and smaller!) FLIR.

Avoid night combat unless you have support from vehicles with illumination flares.

 

The Ka-50 is not meant to do combat at night. The NVGs are there to help you navigate without smacking into something uh, ground-ish :D

 

Also, from your description it seems like you're just trying to react to things shooting at you, or things that just pop out really close.

 

Don't do that. Extend away and set up a run-in after you're safe.

Also, pre-plan. Don't just fly into a situation and expect to shoot back at what's shooting you up ... plan your ingress, the distance or feature from which you will turn back if the enemy has missiles, and stick to it.

 

Don't fly into the enemy. Stop well ahead, hover, scout, then scoot, and repeat.

So I guess the answer is no. There is no fast method for target acquisition.

No, I'm not just stampeding into the combat zone, guns blazing. The issue has come up in a campaign mission specific context. For instance, in a number of missions, you are participating in night operations. Moreover, some of the scenarios involve ambushes where the enemy doesn't appear until a scripted point in the mission. Traditionally, helos/aircraft have been used to draw enemy fire in order for other aircraft to identify and locate targets. Sometimes you just can't find the enemy until they give away their position by moving or firing.

I still don't understand why anyone would design an aircraft "not meant" to operate at night or in bad weather. Sometimes in war, we have to operate under conditions not of our choosing.

No, I'm not just stampeding into the combat zone, guns blazing. The issue has come up in a campaign mission specific context. For instance, in a number of missions, you are participating in night operations. Moreover, some of the scenarios involve ambushes where the enemy doesn't appear until a scripted point in the mission. Traditionally, helos/aircraft have been used to draw enemy fire in order for other aircraft to identify and locate targets. Sometimes you just can't find the enemy until they give away their position by moving or firing.

That's the life of a heli-pilot, then. However - have you tried using helmet sights?

I still don't understand why anyone would design an aircraft "not meant" to operate at night or in bad weather. Sometimes in war, we have to operate under conditions not of our choosing.

I don't think the AH-1 was originally designed for night missions either ;)

The Ka-50 is an old chopper which was meant to help out with the tremendous flow of armor across the fulda gap.

 

That's the life of a heli-pilot, then. However - have you tried using helmet sights?

Well, at night, you can't use the helmet sights because you have the NVGs equipped! :cry:

I don't think the AH-1 was originally designed for night missions either ;)

The Ka-50 is an old chopper which was meant to help out with the tremendous flow of armor across the fulda gap.

For the sake of this conversation, I don't think that is a fair comparison. The AH-1 was delivered to the US Army in what? 1967? The Ka50 was designed in the 1980s and first delivered to the Russian military in '95? Clearly night vision technology had improved by leaps and bounds in the approximate 20 year gap in development cycle.

I don't think there is really an argument here to be had...I just think its a Russian design philosophy that I personally don't see the logic behind. But thats just me.

It isn't an un-fair comparison either. The 80's AH-1 wasn't a night-fighter either, and while the Ka-50 ma have been designed in the 80's, funds dissapeared shortly thereafter, not to mention Army Aviation interest in the concept seemed low.

Add to that russia just being somewhat behind in avionics technology at that point, and you have what you have.

They don't need an excuse, it's what they had at the time :)

Further, once this heli was delivered to the army, it was used for 'low threat' environment, ie. pounding terrorist/insurgent hide-outs.

It isn't an un-fair comparison either. The 80's AH-1 wasn't a night-fighter either, and while the Ka-50 ma have been designed in the 80's, funds dissapeared shortly thereafter, not to mention Army Aviation interest in the concept seemed low.

Add to that russia just being somewhat behind in avionics technology at that point, and you have what you have.

They don't need an excuse, it's what they had at the time :)

Further, once this heli was delivered to the army, it was used for 'low threat' environment, ie. pounding terrorist/insurgent hide-outs.

So what exactly does that say about the Ka50? :(

Its a platform that was developed at a time when there was a lack of funding and a lack of interest in its concept. It was developed by a country behind the times in avionics technology and is intended for use in "low threat" environments...

Sounds like a lame duck to me. Don't get me wrong, I love flying the Black Shark in the simulator, but it seems like a pretty weak platform for 21st century armed conflict based upon your statements...:joystick:

It was never meant to be a 21st century platform ... it was meant to fight in the fulda gap in the 80's, and without enhancements (which simply weren't funded) it is certainly not competitive with modern attack helicopters.

At this point, Russian Army Aviation has cancelled any further Ka-50 production and have instead proceeded with Ka-52s after ordering sensor upgrades (IIRC - I might be wrong)

The Ka-50 still is a bit of a mystery to me. By to days standards it is of course pretty outdated. It suffered from the general backlog of soviet avionics, a IMO general soviet tendency for "complicated automation" and of course the lack of funding and development after the fall of the soviet union. The version we have on DCS has some interesting features, but is basically a 80s prototype.

The real interesting question is, how would the Ka-50 have evolved if the cold war did not end and the Black Shark entered large scale production in the early 90s? I still can not quite see how it was envisioned to be used in the classic Fulda Gap scenario. The chopper has a strong focus on anti-tank operations, but the Soviet (and reportedly current Russian) attack helicopter tactics do not really support this. With 12 ATGM, each helo would fly many individual attack runs (high speed NOE flying), which is simply unpractical on a busy battlefield. Would the Soviets have adopted western AT helicopter tactics?

You adopt tactics that work - that's the least of things to worry about.

The Ka-50 was a Kamov idea first and foremost, pitched as some high-speed rotary winged interdictor of enemy armor.

...

I'm finding visual location and acquisition with the SKVAL to be painstakingly slow.

WHAT ! ? ! ? ... you can use the radar ?

.

Avoid night combat unless you have support from vehicles with illumination flares.

 

The Ka-50 is not meant to do combat at night. The NVGs are there to help you navigate without smacking into something uh, ground-ish :D

 

Also, from your description it seems like you're just trying to react to things shooting at you, or things that just pop out really close.

 

Don't do that. Extend away and set up a run-in after you're safe.

Also, pre-plan. Don't just fly into a situation and expect to shoot back at what's shooting you up ... plan your ingress, the distance or feature from which you will turn back if the enemy has missiles, and stick to it.

 

Don't fly into the enemy. Stop well ahead, hover, scout, then scoot, and repeat.

nice answering......away from "shooter" thinking

Indeed, or like monsieur Paploo likes to say- don't think with ya gun.

Both IRL and BS you never go full speed into an area unless you're sure it's safe. Work a lot with the intel (briefing, map) mission designer has given to you, get familiar with your objective and stick to it, especially when you're in a team. Navigation is crucial for good mission result in BS- learn how to work with the Rubikon navigation complex and especially how to use it to assist your combat task. Same for the ABRIS. You can't IFF in Ka-50 so you gotta be sure what you're shooting at, meaning- good SA of own and friendly forces position. Use the Skhval to sweep the area and spot all targets you can. Try Id their type and set their priority- air-defences, heavy armor, IFV, trucks, SUV's etc. Plan you own (or wing) attack thinking about efficiency and safety, forget about the score and the stats. BS is all about tactics and teamplay, it doesn't matter who makes the kill, as long as the objective is moving forward. Especially if you're a flight lead you should be the one shooting the less.

If it's all about shooting and getting the most kills- well, Lock On is still out there.

It isn't an un-fair comparison either. The 80's AH-1 wasn't a night-fighter either, and while the Ka-50 ma have been designed in the 80's, funds dissapeared shortly thereafter

The first generation Cobras made in the 60s that lingered on in service in the 80s may not have been night fighters. But the AH-1Ws which started entering service in the 80s were night capable, as were of course the Apaches (A-models). And those were entering service in the early 80s, at the time when Ka-50 design was just starting. Even the Mi-24D from the 70s had a FLIR, even if it wasn't fully night capable.

So I don't think it's fair to say it doesn't have any night capability just because it was designed in the 80s, as other helicopters in service at the time did have it. I guess it just wasn't something the Soviet army at the time prioritized.

The Ka-50 is an old chopper which was meant to help out with the tremendous flow of armor across the fulda gap.

I thinks it's generally accepted that the Ka-50 would have been on the same side as that tremendous flow of armor ;) I can't imagine NATO trying to send its puny amount of armor the other way.

The first generation Cobras made in the 60s that lingered on in service in the 80s may not have been night fighters. But the AH-1Ws which started entering service in the 80s were night capable, as were of course the Apaches (A-models). And those were entering service in the early 80s, at the time when Ka-50 design was just starting. Even the Mi-24D from the 70s had a FLIR, even if it wasn't fully night capable.

I guess GGTharos is refering to the Army Cobras that would have to face the bulk of the Soviet offensive in Germany. And those were indeed only operating at day.

Reportedly, the Soviet military was not satisfied with the performance of the Mercury LLTV pod originally installed on the Ka-50 prototype (at least, not for the weight it added to the nose) and, although generally approving the Ka-50 over the Mi-28 for induction into service, instructed Kamov to further develop the helicopter's night vision capabilities.

And then the USSR fell.

To me, the Ka-50 is only understood as a new concept of combat helicopter operations that fell victim to the winds of history and was never fully developed. It was supposed to be an entirely different approach, but we'll never really know how well it would have worked.

I thinks it's generally accepted that the Ka-50 would have been on the same side as that tremendous flow of armor ;) I can't imagine NATO trying to send its puny amount of armor the other way.

Sooo what then, the Russians couldn't employ attack helicopters to help stem their own losses? ;)

I think you made some erroneous assumption as to what I was saying ;)

Why did ED choose to model the KA50 instead of something more capable like the Mi28?

Was it a personal choice by certain programmers?

Just as there is no easy answer about why the Ka-50 is the way it is, there is no easy answer about why ED chose to model it.

If you look at it historically, the Ka-50 was probably seen as a logical expansion to a Su-39 (Su-25T) simulation, given that it also uses the Shkval+Vikhr combo. However, the time span of these plans is measured in years and over numerous products. The Ka-50 evolved to become something entirely different as a simulation.

Besides that, the Ka-50 is a single-seater and is in actual service with the Russian military, unlike the Mi-28 (until recently). It's also a very interesting and unique platform as a combat helicopter, with quite the "cool" popularity factor, especially in Russia.

As for the Mi-28, the original day version was arguable less capable than the Ka-50. It's only with the recent introduction of the night-capable Mi-28N that a more capable platform is being adopted in service, alongside the more capable Ka-52.

Why did ED choose to model the KA50 instead of something more capable like the Mi28?

Was it a personal choice by certain programmers?

.

How bout it ! ? ! ... The Havoc would have been more challenging and had a more dynamic payload to model. But then, that's what I get for not joining the DCS team ... :smilewink: . I'm content in knowing that they are planning on expanding the series. The A-10 though .... WTF. Like those Fighter-Jocks don't have enough sims out there to keep em' busy?

I would love to see the Eurocopter Tiger ARH .... :thumbup:

.

Well, there is a Ka-50N which is night capable. That would be an interesting addition to the game. (via a patch?)

KA-50N: Never gonna happen.

Eurocopter Tiger: Never gonna happen.

MI-28: Also never gonna happen.

The reason for this is because the level of classified data on these airframes prevents ED from completing a 90-100% completely realistic representation of them. There's too much guesswork, and ED has stated that there will be no guess work. The KA-50 was developed with info and help direct from Kamov. Therefore, they knew exactly what it could do and how to implement it. That is why there are no "new" aircraft on the list of projects that ED intends to complete (ie: the F-22). The A-10C was developed direct from a project that they worked on for the US National Guard, so again they have alot of the puzzle pieces needed to complete the project already in place. That's why we're getting the A10 before the AH-64A, and that's why we'll never get a AH-64D.:cry:

It's not only about information, although of course that's important. It's mainly about allocating development resources where it makes the most sense, which is where ED has already allocated them for a military contract. As we've said many times in the past, what happens in DCS depends in large part on what happens on the military side of development. Developing realistic models of modern combat aircraft to the standard of Black Shark and furthermore developing a "gaming" world around them is more or less financially impossible as an independent venture.

P.S. There is no such thing as a Ka-50N (otherwise known as Ka-50Sh) beyond various prototypes.