not planned or correct for version Stinger, Sidewinder or other air-to-air missiles

[Tippis]

18 minutes ago, vigilante87 said:

You must really want those missiles if you are now going after SMEs. lol

You'll notice that I never even mentioned them, and in return, I'll notice that you immediately went after the person rather than the actual argument presented — a curious choice of tactic to employ right after BIGNEWY's post…

 

So “lol” indeed, but not even remotely in the way you intended.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Tippis

[vigilante87]

59 minutes ago, Tippis said:

For one, because the SME's simply  might not know what's doable and what isn't. They are likely very familiar with what is done, which is not the same thing as what can be done.

Right.

 

I'm aware of his comment and I didn't intend for that to be misconstrued as an attack. Just simply trying to lighten the mood with a joke. To each their own I suppose

[Tippis]

23 minutes ago, vigilante87 said:

Right.

 

I'm aware of his comment and I didn't intend for that to be misconstrued as an attack. Just simply trying to lighten the mood with a joke. To each their own I suppose

Fair enough. Just to clarify: I'm simply commenting on a slightly annoying and worrisome trend in recent modules where, rather than simply say what others have been hinting at in this thread — that some data isn't available (commonly because the party they've hooked up with aren't using some particular piece of kit) — that that piece of kit isn't available because “it's unrealistic.” In actuality that's not the real problem. The problem isn't that it's unrealistic, but that they're unable to make a sensible implementation. Sure, as a secondary effect this might cause something less realistic, but that's not the reason given.

 

This also commonly gives rise to the kinds of things we've seen above, where even the detractors of a given idea end up demonstrating that it is indeed fully realistic to include some given capability. But rather than just recognising that fact and acknowledging the missing functionality with a simple “we'd like to include that but we can't because [completely understandable reasons]”, they insist on the unhelpful and often clearly untrue “it's unrealistic”.

 

Thus, in the name of some feigned realism, they end up simulating arbitrary doctrine rather than real hardware. And by “they”, I don't just mean ED — all module makers have had to face the same problem and have in some part made the same excuse. Some seem to have caught on to the fact that it's a pretty bad one and have trended more towards conceding a lack of reliable information as an explanation why something can't be done, and the more we get of that, the less we have to deal with this one constant in every new module.

 

“It's unrealistic” only ever invites counter-examples and the inevitable doctrine-vs-capabiliy row; “we don't know/aren't allowed” kills the question outright.

Edited January 27, 2021 by Tippis

[Snappy]

On 1/18/2021 at 11:54 AM, Cunctator said:

I've only seen images of Japanese AH-64Ds carrying the wingtip mounted Stingers. Obviously not a capability that was necessary for real world conflicts in the last decades, but it would be very nice to have in DCS were things are more balanced.

 

 "More balanced"? Theres near-zero danger of that..  You're already once again getting the most advanced kit in form of a very modern attack helicopter for blue side , while redfor needs to make do with a flying (admittedly famous) battle tank from the 70s&80s and a one-off Attack helicpter that has neither radar nor RWR for that matter, and you re still talking about balancing in your favor ?

Lets not get into all the arguments against balancing, its a simulation, but the way things are odds are heavily tilted into blueforce's favor in DCS and will be for the foreseeable future , so really , I don't see the need to add even more capability.

 

Personally I hope ED does not cave in again at this  as with the F-16 triple maverick  racks &  4 HARMS points , but not holding my breath for that.

 

Maybe for once, just take it as you get it and make do with what you have, through tactics or piloting skills.It's not like you have to stick only to ground targets even with the projected equipment for the module

 

Regards,

Snappy

 

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by Snappy
Edited for at least min-level politeness.

[Tank50us]

On 1/27/2021 at 10:24 AM, Snappy said:

 

 "More balanced"? Theres near-zero danger of that..  You're already once again getting the most advanced kit in form of a very modern attack helicopter for blue side , while redfor needs to make do with a flying (admittedly famous) battle tank from the 70s&80s and a one-off Attack helicpter that has neither radar nor RWR for that matter, and you re still talking about balancing in your favor ?

Lets not get into all the arguments against balancing, its a simulation, but the way things are odds are heavily tilted into blueforce's favor in DCS and will be for the foreseeable future , so really , I don't see the need to add even more capability.

 

Personally I hope ED does not cave in again at this  as with the F-16 triple maverick  racks &  4 HARMS points , but not holding my breath for that.

 

Maybe for once, just take it as you get it and make do with what you have, through tactics or piloting skills.It's not like you have to stick only to ground targets even with the projected equipment for the module

 

Regards,

Snappy

 

 

 

 

The thing is, at the end of the day, DCS is still a game. Sure, it's a hard sim, but it's still a game at the end of the day.

 

Now, here's the kicker, in a training scenario, that 70s era attack helo managed to 'kill' an F-15, so it's not that much of a stretch to give more helicopters A2A capability.

 

Now, MD did test the configuration we see in Firebirds early in the program, and the Army did evaluate it and chose to have the capability on the shelf should it be required. However, just because the capability hasn't been required doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If I'm in an Apache, and some mig Jumps my tail, I'd rather have a dedicated AAM that I can shoot back at him with, rather than hope I can get lucky with one of my dedicated ATGMs. Sure, the Hellfire can whack another helicopter very easily, but as another poster pointed out, in DCS, we won't just be dealing with tanks and helicopters. We will get bounced by fixed-wing aircraft, and we will need a means of fending them off or we won't be able to complete our mission. CAP can't be everywhere at once after all.

 

So while I appreciate that the AH64 has capabilities that neither the Hind or Hokum have (inbuilt RWR), that still doesn't mean we should have capabilities that are known to exist for the helicopter removed.

 

Basically, I believe that if a plane CAN carry something in the real world, it should be able to do so in game, no matter how impractical it is.

[joelsi]

The manual that ED is using directly states that the Air To Air weapon switch is not active and it's a growth position so it's very clear that our Apache cannot use Stingers. In addition to this we'll be getting CMWS and its backwards facing sensors block the places where the Stingers would be mounted.

[Snappy]

On 1/27/2021 at 5:24 PM, Snappy said:

 

Lets not get into all the arguments against balancing, its a simulation, but the way things are odds are hea

 

1 hour ago, Tank50us said:

 

The thing is, at the end of the day, DCS is still a game. Sure, it's a hard sim, but it's still a game at the end of the day.

 

Now, here's the kicker, in a training scenario, that 70s era attack helo managed to 'kill' an F-15, so it's not that much of a stretch to give more helicopters A2A capability.

 

Now, MD did test the configuration we see in Firebirds early in the program, and the Army did evaluate it and chose to have the capability on the shelf should it be required. However, just because the capability hasn't been required doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If I'm in an Apache, and some mig Jumps my tail, I'd rather have a dedicated AAM that I can shoot back at him with, rather than hope I can get lucky with one of my dedicated ATGMs. Sure, the Hellfire can whack another helicopter very easily, but as another poster pointed out, in DCS, we won't just be dealing with tanks and helicopters. We will get bounced by fixed-wing aircraft, and we will need a means of fending them off or we won't be able to complete our mission. CAP can't be everywhere at once after all.

 

So while I appreciate that the AH64 has capabilities that neither the Hind or Hokum have (inbuilt RWR), that still doesn't mean we should have capabilities that are known to exist for the helicopter removed.

 

Basically, I believe that if a plane CAN carry something in the real world, it should be able to do so in game, no matter how impractical it is.

"Now, here's the kicker, in a training scenario, that 70s era attack helo managed to 'kill' an F-15, so it's not that much of a stretch to give more helicopters A2A capability."

 

That is not a kicker, nor is it sth. new. Look up the joint Army/AirForce J-Catch  excercise from the late 70s if you havent already.
Helicopters fared well against jets before, in close-in knife fighting with guns, even without stingers .

If you have to personally deal with fixed wing threats without CAP, you shouldn't really be flying  there anyway (unless you do it for fun in a sandbox scenario).

Any semi-smart modern fighter jetpilot would just engage you with short/medium range missiles from out-of-stinger range anyway if he detects you.

And if he doesn't you certainly shouldn't be drawing attention to yourself by lobbing low PK stinger shots his way.

 

I seriously doubt attack helicopters get send into high threat(from air) areas without air cover.

 

"Basically, I believe that if a plane CAN carry something in the real world, it should be able to do so in game, no matter how impractical it is."

Yea, I get that from a sandbox playstyle point of view, that this would be nice to have.

But it's just not practical and would need to be applied to all other ED aircraft too and that adds just way too much workload&complexity on ED.

The US army doesn't really seem to use it, other nations do yes. So does that mean the F-16 should get the entire isreali weapons loadout that they use with it?

 

Anyway form Joelsi's post it seems that this is not happening anyway, so we can drop the discussion.

 

Regards,
Snappy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 20, 2021 by Snappy

[Tank50us]

2 hours ago, Snappy said:

I seriously doubt attack helicopters get send into high threat(from air) areas without air cover.

 

Ideally, no. The first thing any competent air force will do is eliminate the other guys ability to send up planes at all. However, the guys on the ground can't wait for the two air forces to decide who's got the better sticks, not when they're screaming for CAS right now. So basically, an attack helicopter might have to go up in that high threat environment simply because if they don't, that position will be over run.

 

Alternatively, your intel could suggest other helicopters, but hints that the other guy might have some new fixed wing aircraft capable of operating from unprepared runways (for example aircraft like the Super Tucano, and other light attack craft), so now the threat of being pounced goes up. Ideally, you'd be putting in calls to get your own CAP, but as we saw in '93, those requests may get turned down, or the nature of the operation limits your options.

 

My point being: while exceedingly rare in the real world, there is the possibility an attack helicopter may have to engage another helicopter or a fixed-wing aircraft, and the best weapon for that is always going to be something dedicated for that role (like the Stinger), bonus points if it's something relatively light weight that won't affect the helicopter as much.

[probad]

in other words its a fantasy

[Evoman]

Sounds like only realistic way to get what is asked added is through a mod later on when the Apache releases.

[3WA]

On 1/27/2021 at 8:43 AM, vigilante87 said:

You must really want those missiles if you are now going after SMEs. lol

Yes, we heli pilots DO want them.  Because we are tired of being shot out of the sky.  As another member said, the US didn't adapt them because they have a MASSIVE CAP ability, to cover and control the sky.  Other nations don't, and that's why they carry Air to Air missiles on their heli's.  DCS feels a lot more "Third World" than any American Forces.  In DCS missions, and ESPECIALLY on public servers, you don't know when the jets are going to attack you.  It at least gives you a little relief knowing you can toss SOMETHING at them, maybe causing enough of a distraction for you to break for cover.

 

And personally, I like the Apache, but if doesn't carry Air to Air, I'll probably skip it, and buy the heli's that do.

On 1/27/2021 at 8:43 AM, vigilante87 said:

 

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by 3WA

[Snappy]

5 hours ago, 3WA said:

 

And personally, I like the Apache, but if doesn't carry Air to Air, I'll probably skip it, and buy the heli's that do.

Excellent .Problem solved then. Buy the Mi-24. Then you get R60. You won’t get any of the many push-to-win buttons/capabilities of the Apache though.

 

regards,

 

 Snappy 

 

 

 

 

[3WA]

2 hours ago, Snappy said:

You won’t get any of the many push-to-win buttons/capabilities of the Apache though

If the chopper doesn't have any air defense, it's just a suicide mission anyway.

Edited April 21, 2021 by 3WA

[Mad_Shell]

The problem is expecting your chopper (or any airframe) to do well no matter the environment. IRL you take a certain airframe for a certain mission. Apaches don't fly when there are 5 enemy jets / km^2. So you can always try to go in airquakes server, but no matter what, Apaches are not designed for that, and asking to get stingers specifically for those situations is leaving the door open to all kinds of "balancing" and "compromises". You, however, have some servers dedicated to chopper ops, and you can try to find some buddies to fly missions built for chopper ops, in which you won't need stingers. 

 

Edit: typo

Edited April 21, 2021 by Mad_Shell

[Tippis]

I still maintain that it's weird to see so many not wanting a full simulation of the capabilities of the airframe, and that this deliberate choice of a lesser sim is somehow touted as “realistic” when it's really just a matter of doctrine.

[Snappy]

17 minutes ago, Tippis said:

I still maintain that it's weird to see so many not wanting a full simulation of the capabilities of the airframe, and that this deliberate choice of a lesser sim is somehow touted as “realistic” when it's really just a matter of doctrine.

If you 're cool with delaying your Apache for several more years, while ED  first does exactly this for every single weapon system(oh and conformal tanks ) the F-16 airframe (and to a degree the F-18) is capable of carrying, including those by other customer countries (as is the case with the Stingers), then fine, have it your way. Because those airframes also have more capabilities than what they bring in the sim.

 

And btw its not touted as being "realistic" or anything. Its simply the way ED chose to simulate the aircraft. As one without Stinger capability.

The more "realistic" thing only referred to dropping the idea of going to wage fox 2 war against fighter jets. Its fun yeah, maybe. Realistic, no.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Snappy

[Tank50us]

3 minutes ago, Snappy said:

If you 're cool with delaying your Apache for several more years, while ED  first does exactly this for every single weapon system the F-16 airframe (and to a degree the F-18) is capable of carrying, including those by other customer countries (as is the case with the Stingers), then fine, have it your way.

 

 

 

There's really nothing stopping ED from coming in later and adding such things from time to time ya know. Just because most of the Hornet's crew is moving over to the Falcon doesn't mean work to improve the Hornet won't continue. Heck, I fully expect ED to add new features to the F-18 as they become declassified.

[26-J39]

ED is modeling a variant of the AH-64 that never employed stingers,  so um ah i think it's logical that we won't be getting stingers.

Not too hard to figure out. 

Anyone trying to convince themselves otherwise is wasting there time.

The F-15C is capable of A2G but the software was removed from US jets.   ED follow suit.

KA-50 and the Igla, same story.

 

F-16's with 4x HARM and A-10's with 6x Mav's is a different thing,   AFAIK these loadouts are possible but just not realistically loaded.

[Snappy]

Quote:

"There's really nothing stopping ED from coming in later and adding such things from time to time ya know. Just because most of the Hornet's crew is moving over to the Falcon doesn't mean work to improve the Hornet won't continue. Heck, I fully expect ED to add new features to the F-18 as they become declassified."

 

 

Well I wouldn't expect any new declassified systems if I was you .On the contrary, they are already scratching things from their original Hornet goal, like certain radar modes that the real aircraft has.

 

 

 Anyway I'm out now. You can get stuck on Stingers as long as you like  or not. It seems clear ED is not bringing them.

Feel free to buy something else if its a deal breaker.

 

Regards,

Snappy

 

 

Edited April 21, 2021 by Snappy

[1stBEAST]

hmm, i will buy it with or without ATAS but i would prefer to have the option to mount them.

i mean we even got a franken huey that never existed in this version as well

and i dont think to have this option would be a game breaker.

[Tippis]

2 hours ago, Snappy said:

If you 're cool with delaying your Apache for several more years, while ED  first does exactly this for every single weapon system(oh and conformal tanks ) the F-16 airframe (and to a degree the F-18) is capable of carrying, including those by other customer countries (as is the case with the Stingers), then fine, have it your way.

One does not lead to another, so yes, I'd be pretty cool with the Apache coming out pretty much on schedule and then have the full capabilities of other aircraft being added on over time.

 

2 hours ago, Snappy said:

And btw its not touted as being "realistic" or anything.

Yes it is. In this very thread, just one page before this.

[Sinclair_76]

Stinger are going to do absolutely nothing compared to jets loaded with Sidewinders, AMRAAM or their russian equivalent. It's used as defence against enemy helicopters. You want protection against jets? Befriend a jet pilot.

 

 

[Mad_Shell]

18 minutes ago, Sinclair_76 said:

Stinger are going to do absolutely nothing compared to jets loaded with Sidewinders, AMRAAM or their russian equivalent. It's used as defence against enemy helicopters. You want protection against jets? Befriend a jet pilot.

 

 

 

Tell that to Gazelle Mistral   I love deleting jets with it in airquakes servers. Stingers can be very effective against jets for self defense, because they often don't see helos flying NOE, or they can't attack them from far away if helos hide behind trees/buildings. Anyway, the Apache ED models doesn't have stingers, so I don't expect to see them in DCS.

[3WA]

Lol, in the end, it all comes down to "Does ED want to make money".  And if they don't give people what they want, they aren't going to make money.  And I think ED is very aware of this.

If you play heli's online, you want Air to Air, because otherwise, it's just Suicide.  It's a game, and I don't give a DAMN what Americans think should be loaded on their heli's.  I'm not flying for America, and there is no friendly CAP over me.  If the airframe is capable of carrying it, I want it.  And we can see, almost ALL helicopters are capable of carrying some form of Air to Air.  This includes the Apache, the Cobra, and the Ka-50.  Most other nations, besides the "US", carry Air to Air on their helicopters.

Edited April 21, 2021 by 3WA

[Northstar98]

1 hour ago, 3WA said:

Lol, in the end, it all comes down to "Does ED want to make money".  And if they don't give people what they want, they aren't going to make money.  And I think ED is very aware of this.

 

I strongly doubt that a system that isn't even used on the Apache we're getting is going to be a deal breaker here for most people, it's an Apache - probably the most iconic western attack helicopter.

 

Quote

If you play heli's online, you want Air to Air, because otherwise, it's just Suicide.

 

Well, attack helicopters are not A/A platforms, and they are almost exclusively focused on A/G...

 

Quote

It's a game

 

Yes, one advertised as trying to be as realistic as feasibly possible...

 

Quote

and I don't give a DAMN what Americans think should be loaded on their heli's.  I'm not flying for America...

 

Then aren't you making a mistake by buying an Apache that's explicitly stated to be an American one?

 

Quote

and there is no friendly CAP over me.

 

Well, maybe if there was it wouldn't be so much of a problem...

 

Quote

If the airframe is capable of carrying it, I want it.

 

Well, as we've got a US spec AH-64D, then it doesn't have that capability - it isn't fitted for it.

 

Quote

And we can see, almost ALL helicopters are capable of carrying some form of Air to Air.

 

I guess you mean attack helicopters? And the only attack helicopter we have had for ages has gone the whole time without dedicated AAMs, so I'm not seeing what the problem is...

Edited April 21, 2021 by Northstar98