Reasoning for the Ka-50 cannon mounting.

[MBot]

Make it three, Gazelles carry Mistrals.

[GGTharos]

... and the moral of the story is that I should stop ignoring european stuff :P

[Flyby]

Hey Tharos,

Haev you used the new ME to make amision where the BS encounters opfor fast movers, or even the Hog? Just curious since so much NATO equipment seems to be in the sim (going by the videos I've seen).

Flyby

[Frostie]

One? Kinda like the world series in Baseball!! Tiger HAP that's 2 :P

Everyone knows they're not the best at Baseball:P , Japan have the Kawa OH-1 which carrys AAM.(thats 4)

And the Chinese are potentially too with the Z-10(maybe 5)

[Sundowner.pl]

Polish PZL W-3 Sokol (Falcon) also carries Igla AAMs but they don't actually fly with them, there is limited supply of Iglas (the system wasn't modified to use Polish made GROM missiles yet) so the launchers lay in storage.

 

South African Denel AH-2 Rooivalk also can carry AAMs - MBDA Mistral, almost as standard equipment - its wings are specially made longer with dedicated hard points for double Mistral launchers

[GGTharos]

Well, let's define 'carries'. Carries means HAS A MANDATE TO DEPLOY WITH SUCH IN MISSIONS. Because as we have established ... a lot of helicopters have the CAPABILITY.

 

Not a whole lot of helis deploy with them on missions though.

[GGTharos]

Yes I have. The 50's die ;)

 

Hey Tharos,

Haev you used the new ME to make amision where the BS encounters opfor fast movers, or even the Hog? Just curious since so much NATO equipment seems to be in the sim (going by the videos I've seen).

Flyby

[Weta43]

Originally Posted by 99th_Flyby

Hey Tharos,

Haev you used the new ME to make amision where the BS encounters opfor fast movers, or even the Hog?

 

Originally Posted by GGTharos

Yes I have. The 50's die

 

GG - What are you doing wrong ?

Perhaps it's because it's Soviet gear & not up to the job ...

Or maybe it's because you've got no A2A missiles... :-)

 

I guess that you meant to pass this understanding on when you posted, but I'll say it explicitly - it seems from your link that the Marines feel an apropriately armed helicopter can take on at least some air to air role against fixed wing aircraft without it being a suicide mission...

 

FMFRP 1-11(Fleet Marine Force Organization 1990) lists 11

mission tasks assigned to the AH-1's of a Marine Light/Attack

Helicopter (HMLA) squadron. of these 11 tasks, two of them

specifically require the AH-1 to conduct anti-air warfare (AAW).

The first of these tasks is to "conduct anti-helicopter

operations." The second is to "conduct point and limited area air

defense from threat fixed wing aircraft." Additionally, another

listed task contains an implied AAW mission in that "conduct armed

escort for assault support operations" inherently includes

protecting transport helicopters from attacking enemy aircraft,

both fixed wing and helicopters

 

While I understand that in the interests of maintaining the fidelity of this sim in the face of limited information regarding the implementation of A2A missiles for the Ka-50, ED is unwilling to model the capability, the post does support all those who said that while less capable than a fixed wing aircraft at the task, air defence by a helicopter against fixed wing aircraft ( presumably at least those without BVR capabilities ) is a credible role for an attack helicopter that can be undertaken with a reasonable expectation of survival, and if the information were available the capability should be modelled to allow a fuller range of the missions the plane is credibly capable of to be undertaken in game.

 

 

PS:

You've got to love those military types & the things they'll say to get their way.

In the run up to the F-22 getting the green for funding, you had Boeing running around saying that with evenly matched pilots, in a 1 vs 1 encounter an Su-27 would kill an F-15 every time, and here - in an effort to bolster the argument for actually practicing a role that the pilots are expected to perform, the author raises the spectre of "The most recent Soviet helicopter development (being) the Hokum -- an aircraft "specifically" designed to combat other helicopters."

[arneh]

the author raises the spectre of "The most recent Soviet helicopter development (being) the Hokum -- an aircraft "specifically" designed to combat other helicopters."

 

Well, you have to take into consideration that when the report was written. NATO believed throughtout the 80s that the Havoc was a dedicated air-air helicopter, and not a conventional anti-tank helicopter. Quite fun reading it now and see how wrong they were, but you can't really blame the author of this Cobra-report for believing what was the "general wisdom" within NATO at the time.

[GGTharos]

Hehe. :) Let me go point by point ...

 

GG - What are you doing wrong ?

Perhaps it's because it's Soviet gear & not up to the job ...

Or maybe it's because you've got no A2A missiles... :-)

 

I'm not doing anything wrong - and A2A missiles wouldn't help ... unless the AI does something silly like descending to target altitude to attack, rather than using slashing attacks.

 

I guess that you meant to pass this understanding on when you posted, but I'll say it explicitly - it seems from your link that the Marines feel an apropriately armed helicopter can take on at least some air to air role against fixed wing aircraft without it being a suicide mission...

 

They do it because they -must-, and yes, because the AH-1W -can- attack -some- fixed wing aircraft ... note the targets they mention. They're talking low/slow flying attack aircraft mostly, or a fighter that has made the mistake of 'getting down there' (or it simply had to due to radar or whatever limitations).

 

While I understand that in the interests of maintaining the fidelity of this sim in the face of limited information regarding the implementation of A2A missiles for the Ka-50, ED is unwilling to model the capability, the post does support all those who said that while less capable than a fixed wing aircraft at the task, air defence by a helicopter against fixed wing aircraft ( presumably at least those without BVR capabilities ) is a credible role for an attack helicopter that can be undertaken with a reasonable expectation of survival, and if the information were available the capability should be modelled to allow a fuller range of the missions the plane is credibly capable of to be undertaken in game.

 

Keep in mind that 'when you have nothing else, you use what you have'. Those helis are the only AA support a rescue heli might have. Their AA ability is -very- limited, but yes, in a pinch, anything that can launch an AA missile will do. It's just not he best platform for the job, but it must simply do said job.

And yes, like you said, if it had a mission mandate to do so, that should be simulated.

But if it doesn't ... well ... I don't have bombs on my F-15C either. Because it can, but it doesn't.

 

PS:

You've got to love those military types & the things they'll say to get their way.

In the run up to the F-22 getting the green for funding, you had Boeing running around saying that with evenly matched pilots, in a 1 vs 1 encounter an Su-27 would kill an F-15 every time, and here - in an effort to bolster the argument for actually practicing a role that the pilots are expected to perform, the author raises the spectre of "The most recent Soviet helicopter development (being) the Hokum -- an aircraft "specifically" designed to combat other helicopters."

 

 

Yup :) But notice the 'specifically' ... I think given the Ka-50's sensor suite, it was -never- meant as a heliceptor. Kamov simply 'envisioned it' as such at first, and maybe even tried to sell it on that point, but we've all seen how successful -that- was, right?

In any case ... I'll say it again: The Vikhr is a fine anti-heli missile.

[kapuhy]

Polish PZL W-3 Sokol (Falcon) also carries Igla AAMs but they don't actually fly with them, there is limited supply of Iglas (the system wasn't modified to use Polish made GROM missiles yet) so the launchers lay in storage.

 

There are also Mi-2URS and URPG with GAD system (9M32M STRZALA-2M missles).

[Prophet]

Regarding the OP;

 

I believe I saw an episode about attack choppers and it had to do with repeat fire accuracy.

[Avimimus]

They do it because they -must-, and yes, because the AH-1W -can- attack -some- fixed wing aircraft ... note the targets they mention. They're talking low/slow flying attack aircraft mostly, or a fighter that has made the mistake of 'getting down there' (or it simply had to due to radar or whatever limitations).

[....]

I don't have bombs on my F-15C either. Because it can, but it doesn't.

[....]

Kamov simply 'envisioned it' as such at first, and maybe even tried to sell it on that point, but we've all seen how successful -that- was, right?

In any case ... I'll say it again: The Vikhr is a fine anti-heli missile.

 

This again! :roll:

 

To the first point, low/slow attack aircraft I presume to include the A-10 and Su-25 right? In other words, the next two add ons...

 

As for the fighters: Not only do fighter pilots often act stupid in real life, would a fighter make slashing attacks from altitude if it was inside of an S-300 belt? When faced with high energy, medium-long range sams there are a variety of situations in which any aircraft could find itself flying low and being forced to loose energy in order to follow the contours of the terrain.

 

In an ideal world you take out every enemy long range SAM threat and then stay at high alt away from the Manpads. In the real world, sometimes attacks would have had to be made when high altitude approaches were not feasible.

 

We have seen footage of the Ka-50 carrying the R-73 and the Kamov design bureau compulsively mentions the Igla.

 

Quite frankly, given that we haven't seen large scale deployments of the Ka-50 and that its original theatre (for which AAMs would be valuable) no longer exists we can only speculate based on pre-production test flights. If there is an answer it is in the official papers of the RuAF or in the avionics.

[GGTharos]

And yet, there's no known combat-ready AAM system fitted to the Ka-50. ;)

[Weta43]

Perhaps more importantly for a 'high fidelity study sim' I can think of 2 points that might cause ED not to include any player controlled AAM systems in BS:

 

1/If there are combat-ready AAM systems fitted to the Ka-50, it's quite likely no one at ED knows what they look like in operation from inside the cockpit. If so, anything ED did by way of implementation would be pure speculation, which they're saying they're trying to avoid.

 

2/The seeker model from LO/FC has caused pages of on-line moaning & gnashing of teeth. To add a player launched A2A missile they would likely have to add a more 'High Fi' seeker model, which if they don't implement AAM systems on the Ka-50, they can leave till another module & avoid the grief..

 

Either of these seems like a good enough reason at this stage.

[Fang]

It's not just you, the Apache fanbois don't like anyone saying that the Ka-50 could kick it's ass :megalol:

 

What a fanboi lol, Ever heard the saying 2 heads are better than one?, The KA-50 is limited no matter what is said, because it is has 1 single pilot and no WSO.

[Frostie]

Ever heard the saying 2 heads are better than one?

So the F-16D should own the C in a dogfight everytime then, right?

[kapuhy]

So the F-16D should own the C in a dogfight everytime then, right?

 

Of course, and F-16B will do the same thing even to F-22 :D

[GGTharos]

Why are you comparing apples to oranges? Once a fight starts, it's all about the guy flying the thing and gunning - but when it comes to missile weapon employment, the gunner starts becoming pretty important in the heli, where weapons are more cumbersome.

 

And before that fight even starts, and during it, that second set of eyes in the heli is a /huge/ help ... starting with 'I saw you first'.

 

So the F-16D should own the C in a dogfight everytime then, right?

[Flyby]

Can anyone discuss Kamov's reasoning for designing the Ka-50, then designing the Ka-52? I'd be interested to know, and I think it's as close to comparing apples to apples as we may come. Same company; two different thought processes on the helicopter gunship. Several countries have two-seat gunships. I suppose some also have single-seat gunships. It would therefore also be interesting to know why these countries made the choices they did.

Flyby

[GGTharos]

The Ka-50 is an attempt at selling gunships to the army. The Ka-52 is the 'Ka-50 pack leader', the second man is actually the flight commander, and the Ka-52 has the task of potentially scouting out targets, doing the navigation, and handing out targets to the Ka-50's in the flight. In Chechenia this was done with a modified Ka-29.

The single-pilot thing seems to have been an experiment.

[Sundowner.pl]

Two heads are better than one, this statement is true. Yet comparing it to air-to-air fighter jet combat is very bad. You forget that fighters have radars, that have automated dogfight modes, that do not need any additional input from the pilot, than just maneuver the plane to have other jet in radar field of view.

 

Ka-50 and AH-64A targeting systems are not automated, to find and lock on targets by their own! In this case a second pair of eyes and hands is very useful.

 

If you want to compare single seated to double seated jets, than take other missions like EW, SEAD, Strike, etc. Remember that F-15Es, F-16I, Su-30, Tornado, etc. have two seats for a reason. Actually the same goes for US Navy fighters, where flying and landing is stressful enough, and the sensor modes are bit more complicated.

[Malleus]

@99th flyby

AFAIK the Ka-50 is the only operational single seat helicopter. Also, the Ka-52 was created later, bacause they realized that the single seat thing is not as good as they thought, and also because of the need for a "pack leader" platform.

[Sundowner.pl]

I don't think so. The Ka-52 was made by the Kamov own money, because no one else would buy a single-seat attack helicopter. Russian military don't want it, it's for export only.

[Malleus]

I don't think so. The Ka-52 was made by the Kamov own money...

 

Yes, but designing the Ka-52 and saying they are meant to work together with the 50s kinda looks like Kamov's way of trying to justify the existence of, and saving the Ka-50 project isn't it?