Reasoning for the Ka-50 cannon mounting.

[Yellonet]

And what will you go by? Something you make up yourself? :)

That might be closer to the truth when compared to news from a combat zone ;)

[AlphaOneSix]

Ahh the Apaches in Albania debacle. So much hearsay and nobody here seems to have any idea what the truth of the matter was. So I'll try to help.

 

First, the unit was from Germany, they had plenty of training in mountainous terrain.

 

Second, the mission was cancelled and the unit returned to Germany after two crashes, one killing both pilots. Both crashes occurred during training missions. However, they were not training to fly in the mountains.

 

In the case of the first crash, it was a training exercise for the Downed Aircraft Recovery Team and CSAR elements (just happened to turn from exercise to "real" very quickly). That first crash was caused by an aircraft settling with power, also known as vortex ring state. The cause was determined to be pilot error, but has nothing to do with not knowing how to fly in the mountains (considering the aircraft was hovering at the time) or because of a design flaw in the aircraft. Both pilots survived with very minor injuries.

 

The second crash also occurred during training, but again, this was not a training flight to learn how to fly in rough terrain, it was a training flight to learn the local area and the various routes that would be used during actual missions. Units always go through an initial phase of a deployment where they get up to speed on the local terrain, etc. The second crash was caused by a failure of the aircraft's Backup Control System, causing the aircraft to roll sharply during low altitude flight. The aircraft crashed into the ground and sadly both pilots were lost.

 

The Apache's performance in Albania should not reflect poorly on the aircraft itself or even it's pilots (in general) unless you are sorely misinformed or just have a grudge against Apaches for some reason.

[GGTharos]

Delusion does not suit you ;)

 

That might be closer to the truth when compared to news from a combat zone ;)

 

Edit: A16, thanks for chiming in :)

[Yellonet]

Delusion does not suit you ;)

:smartass::smilewink:

[Murderous]

The entire "which aircraft is better" argument here is pointless. IRL, you know who will win the fight between the KA-50 and the AH-64? The guy who sees the other guy first.

[Avimimus]

Well, I wasn't entierly serious, but saying you're not trained enough for the mission at hand is a bad excuse because it shouldn't ever be a reason for failure. Sending in untrained (in this case for the special flying circumstances) personal is asking for trouble.

 

It happens all the time though. There have been recent conflicts in which an insurgence, for example, could easily have been predicted, but where, after several years, the invading force still hasn't trained at least one soldier per squad in the local language...

 

I think its a good premise for a campaign or for the failure of a campaign (lack of training, ignorance, inexperience etc.)

[Murderous]

The AH-64 didn't fail in Yugoslavia, as somebody already stated, it never received a mission! Hard to accomplish a mission when politicians and blood thirsty media rip it from under your feet.

[forlorn]

The AH-64 didn't fail in Yugoslavia, as somebody already stated, it never received a mission! Hard to accomplish a mission when politicians and blood thirsty media rip it from under your feet.

 

Huh?

[Murderous]

To be more specific, the first accident (pilot error) was jumped upon by the media which in turn attracted public/political attention. The 2nd accident was merely a mechanical failure that unfortunately happened too soon after the first. For some reason, the US Army and Washington had decided to hype up the AH-64 deployment as some sort of "proving ground." Following the swarm of negative press the US was forced to withdraw the 64's before their mission was even clearly defined or had begun. That being said, I just don't see how a person can say it "failed" due to the environment it was in. In fact, it is precisely the environment the aircraft was designed for! BTW not flaming anybody, just wanted to argue a point that had not been mentioned.

 

Edit: I am pretty sure the aviators flying those aircraft were proficient and trained for the conditions they were flying in. There are many other factors that could have caused the first crash, possible hypoglycemia, fatigue, or just simply spacial disorentation. These are key factors that many simmers simply take for granted.

[Weta43]

I get the feeling that we will see a lot of whining about the Apache not being the best in all respects when it is released. "omg apache is so undermodeled!!!11"

Not if ED ensures that the moment an apache takes to the air, every tank on the opposing force instantly bursts into flames, and every helicopter they face disintigrates as they come within visual range, but otherwise, I suspect your right :-)

 

 

The AH-64 didn't fail in Yugoslavia, as somebody already stated, it never received a mission! Hard to accomplish a mission when politicians and blood thirsty media rip it from under your feet.

 

It had a mission - it just took SOOO LOONNGGGG to deploy it to the front line that by the time it got there the original mission no longer existed. To that extent this was a failing of the 'Army' rather than the Apache. However it was unsuited to the tasks that were required of it when it did get there - given that there was still the possiblilty that it might have to face MANPADS & ShoRAd & VY forces had dispersed into the countryside

[GGTharos]

I suspect that's wrong ... rather, there will be a lot of whining from the Ka-50 side ;)

 

Not if ED ensures that the moment an apache takes to the air, every tank on the opposing force instantly bursts into flames, and every helicopter they face disintigrates as they come within visual range, but otherwise, I suspect your right :-)

 

 

More like its mission was ill-conceived from the get-go, meaning they expected it to fullfill some sort of high-risk mission (high risk meaning you might expect a bunch of losses) in a conflict where this was not needed. The Apache was not unsuited for it, but the mission was more along the lines of what you might want to do with it in a Fulda Gap scenario rather than risking it against a supressed (but hidden) army.

 

It had a mission - it just took SOOO LOONNGGGG to deploy it to the front line that by the time it got there the original mission no longer existed. To that extent this was a failing of the 'Army' rather than the Apache. However it was unsuited to the tasks that were required of it when it did get there - given that there was still the possiblilty that it might have to face MANPADS & ShoRAd & VY forces had dispersed into the countryside

[Murderous]

To that extent this was a failing of the 'Army' rather than the Apache. However it was unsuited to the tasks that were required of it when it did get there - given that there was still the possiblilty that it might have to face MANPADS & ShoRAd & VY forces had dispersed into the countryside

 

I do agree that the Army failed on the deployment. Also, any attack airframe is in a WORLD of trouble against MANPADS. Doesn't matter what country is flying them.

[Avimimus]

Does anyone know exactly what happened over Baghdad? The incident where the apache group was ambushed by infantry.

[Mugatu]

This one?

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/military/stories/MYSA21.01A.Longbow_1_0321.7d24b3c.html

[AlphaOneSix]

Yeah, that's the one. Although it was well south of Baghdad and I wouldn't call it an "ambush" as much as it was an unexpectedly heavy and coordinated defense.

[Yellonet]

I suspect that's wrong ... rather, there will be a lot of whining from the Ka-50 side ;)

The Ka-50 is really quite unknown to most people. The AH-64 has been hyped through military propaganda, movies and so on to be a a fantastic machine that can handle any threat and defeat any opponent. Given this, the odds speak in favour of the possibility of Apache fans expecting too much from their beloved chopper. Ka-50 flyers really don't know what to expect and will likely accept what is given to them in a much higher degree than people in the "other camp" who "knows" how an Apache should work.

[brewber19]

I'm thinking there will be whining on both camps...just look at LO/FC...or IL2 or...

 

You get my point. If someone's favourite is perceived to perform poorly its always the software/model etc, never the pilot or the fact that their favourite is just plain inferior.

 

My favourite ride in FC is the Frog. I love the vanilla for its speed and maneouvrability (versus the T!), I love the T for its payload and range, but I acknowledge the Hog is simply far better at eliminating armour while improving survivability for the pilot. (I also acknowledge they're designed for slightly different roles/tasks).

 

The whining is simply part of gaming (it aint just sims) and, in fact, is part of human behaviour so...when the next DCS modules arrive just kick back, grab a beer and try to review the whining with impartiality.

 

(I'll get down from the moral high-ground now, as the air is very thin up and here and its seems to have given me a brain-fart ;))

[GGTharos]

I suggest you look around internet forums....the Ka-50 is what's been hyped up as some sort of mythical heli-intercepting air to air with rotor machine, and by the way, it can bust up tanks too ;)

 

But again, the differences are right now made up in avionics ... the Ka-50 would fare much better than an Apache, for example, in a high altitude mountain setting - the apache still has sensor/cueing dominance, but it can't move quite as freely.

 

The Ka-50 is really quite unknown to most people. The AH-64 has been hyped through military propaganda, movies and so on to be a a fantastic machine that can handle any threat and defeat any opponent. Given this, the odds speak in favour of the possibility of Apache fans expecting too much from their beloved chopper. Ka-50 flyers really don't know what to expect and will likely accept what is given to them in a much higher degree than people in the "other camp" who "knows" how an Apache should work.

[-akyla-]

The Ka-50 is really quite unknown to most people. The AH-64 has been hyped through military propaganda, movies and so on to be a a fantastic machine that can handle any threat and defeat any opponent. Given this, the odds speak in favour of the possibility of Apache fans expecting too much from their beloved chopper. Ka-50 flyers really don't know what to expect and will likely accept what is given to them in a much higher degree than people in the "other camp" who "knows" how an Apache should work.

I agree with you Yellonet!

[diveplane]

ka50 flying action

http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_Kamov_Ka-50-Airline_Untitled_Aviation_Video-6802.html

[Yellonet]

ka50 flying action

http://www.flightlevel350.com/Aircraft_Kamov_Ka-50-Airline_Untitled_Aviation_Video-6802.html

Nice footage, thanks :)

[diveplane]

np.

[GGTharos]

I found something I think is interesting; namely a description of the AH-1W's Air to Air tasking, here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/BRM.htm

 

It is an interesting read, which emphasizes once more that air to air weapons are NOT withheld from helicopters for technological means, but merely based on the mission tasking and training of the pilots.

To be more clear: Mating an AAM to a helicopter isn't a big deal - you can attach one to a heli after you build appropriate FCS linkage. However, so far there's just one heli that's really expected to carry out any sort of AA combat, and it's the only one that is thusly regularly armed with AAMs.

[Force_Feedback]

That footage was as lame as all those F-22 demos. If you want exciting Ka-50 footage, try to find the one from MAKS 97, that was some flying, this is just a grandma in the pit, or a seriousely stoned pilot.

And you can't just hang any A-A missile on a helicopter, as some are not rated to be fired below 350 km/h, so that may mess up the guidance due to oscillations of the missile.

[Mugatu]

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

 

I found something I think is interesting; namely a description of the AH-1W's Air to Air tasking, here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/BRM.htm

 

It is an interesting read, which emphasizes once more that air to air weapons are NOT withheld from helicopters for technological means, but merely based on the mission tasking and training of the pilots.

To be more clear: Mating an AAM to a helicopter isn't a big deal - you can attach one to a heli after you build appropriate FCS linkage. However, so far there's just one heli that's really expected to carry out any sort of AA combat, and it's the only one that is thusly regularly armed with AAMs.