Ka-50 vs Apache what do you prefer?

[Dropbear]

Right now, as it is now, I think the KA50 is more fun in single play... I feel like im pretty invincible in the KA and have a much better situational awareness than in the Apache relying on George ..... but i play mostly on multiplayer servers. If we ever get the option to seat swap on multiplayer then I think my opinion will change..

 

 

[Rhinozherous]

The superior features (IHADSS, FLIR, PNVS, the MPDs, modern RWR and CMWS.......) making the Apache so much more enjoyable. The Coaxial rotor system is nice on the Ka50, but this is nothing against the complete package of the Apache.

Dont get me wrong, I always loved the Black Shark, but I dont think I hop back into it any time soon. The Kamov and I had good times, but the apache is the new beast in town  

Edited March 27, 2022 by Rhinozherous

[Jester2138]

2 hours ago, BeastyBaiter said:

The Ka-50 is an overwhelmingly superior machine to the AH-64 as it currently exists in game.

Wow. Hard to express just how strongly I disagree with that. The Apache is better at everything except high altitude. And for most of those things, it's not even close. The excellent RWR alone makes the Apache hugely superior and more deadly. Hellfires are hugely better than Vikhrs. The navigation and avionics in general are ridiculously superior in the Apache. The sensors and fire control systems are at least one full generation ahead in the Apache. I could go on and on.

[TheCrysinator]

Definitely the Apache. The ASE saved my ass more than once already and it feels so good to have that additional situational awareness. The capabilities of the sensor suite is also a dream to work with. Even more so when the Apache is feature complete.

[dburne]

Yep I had lots of fun with Black Shark a few years ago. Kind of partial to it still now as I have not really learned the Apache yet, but I am still working on that. I had a ton of fun with both Janes Longbow and Longbow II so I could see myself easily becoming partial to the Apache. If that is I make it through the learning process. I have a long way to go.

[Beirut]

29 minutes ago, Jester2138 said:

Wow. Hard to express just how strongly I disagree with that. The Apache is better at everything except high altitude. And for most of those things, it's not even close. The excellent RWR alone makes the Apache hugely superior and more deadly. Hellfires are hugely better than Vikhrs. The navigation and avionics in general are ridiculously superior in the Apache. The sensors and fire control systems are at least one full generation ahead in the Apache. I could go on and on.

 

The Ka-50 packs a bigger punch. Both carry 30mm cannon, but the Ka-50 packs missiles with 200lb warheads. Not to mention heavy "Zuni class" rockets, bombs, and cluster munitions. 

 

The Apache is an excellent scalpel, but the Havoc is a sledgehammer. 

[Beirut]

2 hours ago, Jester2138 said:

Hellfires are hugely better than Vikhrs. 

 

That's at least open to debate.

 

I just conducted some totally unscientific tests with Hellfires and Vikhrs. Four tanks in a row head on, about two kilometers,  two Abrams and two T-90s, side by each.  Except for a few oddities where the missile hit and did no damage at all (checked F10), and it happened with both kinds of tanks and both kinds of missiles, it was all one shot kills. Ran it a few times. Whether the hits with no damage were due to an in-game eccentricity or my beverage, I don't know. But the missiles were basically dead even. And I think as far as range goes they are in the same ballpark.

[Mad_Shell]

5 hours ago, Beirut said:

 

That's at least open to debate.

 

I just conducted some totally unscientific tests with Hellfires and Vikhrs. Four tanks in a row head on, about two kilometers,  two Abrams and two T-90s, side by each.  Except for a few oddities where the missile hit and did no damage at all (checked F10), and it happened with both kinds of tanks and both kinds of missiles, it was all one shot kills. Ran it a few times. Whether the hits with no damage were due to an in-game eccentricity or my beverage, I don't know. But the missiles were basically dead even. And I think as far as range goes they are in the same ballpark.

Warhead effectiveness is about the same for the 2 missiles, but it's not everything... The Hellfire allows LOAL mode, remote designation, ripple fire...

[Wychmaster]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb Beirut:

 

That's at least open to debate.

 

I just conducted some totally unscientific tests with Hellfires and Vikhrs. Four tanks in a row head on, about two kilometers,  two Abrams and two T-90s, side by each.  Except for a few oddities where the missile hit and did no damage at all (checked F10), and it happened with both kinds of tanks and both kinds of missiles, it was all one shot kills. Ran it a few times. Whether the hits with no damage were due to an in-game eccentricity or my beverage, I don't know. But the missiles were basically dead even. And I think as far as range goes they are in the same ballpark.

And now consider that you can fire the Hellfire without seeing the target only exposing yourself for the last 12 seconds. Additionally, someone could simply buddy lase for you, so no need to get out of cover at all. While the first thing might be possible with the Ka-50 doing some trick shooting (not so easy), the second isn't (as far as I know). Also don't forget that we will get the radar guided Hellfire, which will be a fire and forget weapon.

On the other hand, as far as I know, the Vikhr has 1 km more range (IIRC), A beam rider should in theory be slightly better when using it against airborne targets since it doesn't require you to keep the laser on target, only in the last few seconds. So you can manually guide it on a more efficient intercept course and it isn't as bad if the target disappears for a few seconds as it is with a spot tracking missile. The proximity fuse on the Vikhr also helps, don't know if the Hellfire has one IRL. However, aircrafts are not the primary target of both missiles.

I can't tell which missile is superior in terms of reliability and effectiveness against armor, but the Laser Hellfire wins the flexibility contest against its primary target.

vor 6 Stunden schrieb Beirut:

 

The Ka-50 packs a bigger punch. Both carry 30mm cannon, but the Ka-50 packs missiles with 200lb warheads. Not to mention heavy "Zuni class" rockets, bombs, and cluster munitions. 

 

The Apache is an excellent scalpel, but the Havoc is a sledgehammer. 

I would consider both cannons more or less equally good, just not in the same categories. The Ka-50 gun is more precise, giving you a higher effective range, which is nice for sniping targets. The Apache gun is a better suppression weapon since the turret can cover a larger area. So you can respond much quicker to popup threats.

All the other weapons are extremely situational and are seldomly chosen in DCS except for the larger rockets maybe (Can't tell how it's done IRL). 2 missiles instead of 12? Maybe if you want to go against ships or a bunker. Bombs that require you to fly over the target? Hello AAA? And bigger rockets? Well, only makes sense if you are trying to tear down fortifications. For everything else they are to unreliable regarding their accuracy and you pay for the punch by a significant reduction in quantity. Also, rockets are much easier to aim with the Apache.

 

For me, the Apache is the clear winner, even though I enjoyed my time in the Kamov and will definitely buy BS3. I can't really name many things where I think the Kamov is better. System-wise the Apache wins easily. SA is much better in the Apache and you have a much better view outside the cockpit. Maybe the Kamov has better autopilots as a consequence of being a single pilot chopper. It has better protection and it can take more beating (looking at you, tail rotor). In DCS context, maybe the Ka-50 is nicer for single player (for obvious reasons) but if you fly from the front seat and treat George as auto-hover/autopilot stand-in, it shouldn't be too different once the Apache has all it's features on board (missing the contrast lock the most).

[kotor633]

Hi,
Neither nor. For me personally, the Mi-24 & Mi-8 are the measure of all things in DCS. The KA-50 may become interesting again for me in version 3. But to stay with the original question: The KA-50. Apache is too complex for me, I don't have the time or inclination for that. 

[Amarok_73]

For fun Apache, but only if there's my live CP/G with me. For comfort and efficiency definitely Ka-50. The only thing I miss in Kamov is the MWS that was there some time ago, but is removed since a while.

Edited March 28, 2022 by Amarok_73

[Legolasindar]

F-16

[cow_art]

Am I the only one who absolutely loathes the horrible horrible Shkval in the Ka-50? Don't get me wrong, the Shark absolutely is a cool helo. But the FLIR alone makes the Apache the instant winner for me. And George is just icing on the cake, really. Finally a modern attack helicopter where I can focus on piloting. Even if the Apache is slightly unfinished at this point (hold modes...) I am already super-happy with it and can't imagine I'll go back to the Shark any time soon.

Edited March 28, 2022 by cow_art
grammur

[Beirut]

2 hours ago, Wychmaster said:

And now consider that you can fire the Hellfire without seeing the target only exposing yourself for the last 12 seconds. Additionally, someone could simply buddy lase for you, so no need to get out of cover at all. While the first thing might be possible with the Ka-50 doing some trick shooting (not so easy), the second isn't (as far as I know). Also don't forget that we will get the radar guided Hellfire, which will be a fire and forget weapon.

On the other hand, as far as I know, the Vikhr has 1 km more range (IIRC), A beam rider should in theory be slightly better when using it against airborne targets since it doesn't require you to keep the laser on target, only in the last few seconds. So you can manually guide it on a more efficient intercept course and it isn't as bad if the target disappears for a few seconds as it is with a spot tracking missile. The proximity fuse on the Vikhr also helps, don't know if the Hellfire has one IRL. However, aircrafts are not the primary target of both missiles.

I can't tell which missile is superior in terms of reliability and effectiveness against armor, but the Laser Hellfire wins the flexibility contest against its primary target.

 

I'm sure you're correct in all of that. No question the Hellfire wins the fancy award.  

 

2 hours ago, Wychmaster said:

I would consider both cannons more or less equally good, just not in the same categories. The Ka-50 gun is more precise, giving you a higher effective range, which is nice for sniping targets. The Apache gun is a better suppression weapon since the turret can cover a larger area. So you can respond much quicker to popup threats.

 

I found the Apache gun a had more punch. And you have no idea how much it hurts me to say that. 

 

Both guns bounced off a T-55 from any angle. And both bounced off the Chinese ZBD-04A at the front, but the Apache killed it from the side and back and the Havoc still just bounced off. This was the quickest and most informal of tests. 

 

2 hours ago, Wychmaster said:

All the other weapons are extremely situational and are seldomly chosen in DCS except for the larger rockets maybe (Can't tell how it's done IRL). 2 missiles instead of 12? Maybe if you want to go against ships or a bunker.

 

I'm a big fan of the Kh-25s. If you set for "long" launch, both fire at once and you can dump 400lb of Kaboom! from 7 or 8km onto the target and skitdaddle.  That's more explosives than in all 16 Hellfires combined. I definitely feel the love for those things. 

 

Whether I carry Kh-25s or the Vikrs, I almost always have the S-13 "heavy" rockets on the inner pylons. Those things have a great free-fire punch that the Apache lacks. If you're going for a hit and run, you can lay down up to 20 heavy rockets on the quick. That's a broadside the Apache can only dream about. 

 

2 hours ago, Wychmaster said:

Bombs that require you to fly over the target? Hello AAA? And bigger rockets? Well, only makes sense if you are trying to tear down fortifications. For everything else they are to unreliable regarding their accuracy and you pay for the punch by a significant reduction in quantity. Also, rockets are much easier to aim with the Apache.

 

Yeah the bombs are funky. But as stated the heavy rockets are great. You can treetop at 275kph, pop up and barrage a column or armour or an installation and split and leave some quality casualties in your wake. The Havoc is definitely the sledgehammer.

 

 

2 hours ago, Wychmaster said:

For me, the Apache is the clear winner, even though I enjoyed my time in the Kamov and will definitely buy BS3. I can't really name many things where I think the Kamov is better. System-wise the Apache wins easily. SA is much better in the Apache and you have a much better view outside the cockpit. Maybe the Kamov has better autopilots as a consequence of being a single pilot chopper. It has better protection and it can take more beating (looking at you, tail rotor). In DCS context, maybe the Ka-50 is nicer for single player (for obvious reasons) but if you fly from the front seat and treat George as auto-hover/autopilot stand-in, it shouldn't be too different once the Apache has all it's features on board (missing the contrast lock the most).

 

You're right on pretty much everything. I'd say if it's a technical fight, the Apache wins - if it's a dirty street fight, I want the Ka-50.

[Devrim]

15 hours ago, RightStuff said:

Just 13?
LB2 up to now is roughly 25 years, I assume.

Those were the days… 

You're right about that but when I download and see the BS1 cockpit, then I've thought myself that since the technology allows this simulation why don't we have Apache?

So, my counter has started to wait for an Apache at that moment and now it stopped.

[Coole28]

3 hours ago, cow_art said:

Am I the only one who absolutely loathes the horrible horrible Shkval in the Ka-50? Don't get me wrong, the Shark absolutely is a cool helo. But the FLIR alone makes the Apache the instant winner for me. And George is just icing on the cake, really. Finally a modern attack helicopter where I can focus on piloting. Even if the Apache is slightly unfinished at this point (hold modes...) I am already super-happy with it and can't imagine I'll go back to the Shark any time soon.

 

FLIR is definitely a plus for night ops, but Shkval has ground stabilization and can “lock” a moving target, both of which the TADS can’t do (idk if these are going to be a future feature or not).  Combined with a lack of hold modes for the pilot, TADS is an absolute b*tch to use for anything other than stationary targets with George doing his magic hover mode.  

Also, I don’t know if my game is biffed or what, but FLIR doesn’t seem to work the majority of the time.  Hay bales will light up like a solar flare in the FLIR, but the column of T-80s that have been idling for an hour in the dead of winter have no thermal signature whatsoever.  

[Flia]

Apache is the clear winner because it has FLIR.

[llOPPOTATOll]

8 minutes ago, Coole28 said:

idk if these are going to be a future feature or not

The TADS will get the ability to do a contrast lock on targets with MTT, however with a little practice LMC works quite well besides the Desync bugs.

[Wychmaster]

vor 7 Stunden schrieb kotor633:

Hi,
Neither nor. For me personally, the Mi-24 & Mi-8 are the measure of all things in DCS. The KA-50 may become interesting again for me in version 3. But to stay with the original question: The KA-50. Apache is too complex for me, I don't have the time or inclination for that. 

If you are more into old soviet tech helos, I can't argue with that. But I would say the marked section is wrong. I mean, you manage to find your way through a jungle of nearly randomly placed switches but as soon as one puts 2 MFDs into a very clean cockpit, it gets to complicated?

Yes you can take a real deep dive into the system  pages, but if you just want to blow things up the way you do with the Hind, it is extremely simple to do, especially if you consider that you just have 3 weapon types. The complexity only comes from the huge number of things you can do, not from the fact that they are overly complicated. Again, if it's not your taste, that's fine. But don't miss it because it seems to complicated. It's not. Anyways, happy 

[kotor633]

Yes, I really like the analogue design. And yes, I find it easier to flick a few switches. Compared to Apache. I find typing on the MFDs too cumbersome. What I've seen in previous videos is enough for me. Then there's the monocle. You will be overwhelmed with information. I just don't like it. You don't have all that with the Mi. Those who have fun with the Apach and have no problem with it are granted it. That's how it should be. But what I will do is that later I will test Apache for 14 days. Rather, I'd rather wait and see how the Bo-105 develops. I think it will be knitted similarly simply. But that's all off topic... 

[sorcer3r]

Pilot and Gunner are the winners for me. There is a reason why they made the Ka52

[Hobel]

8 hours ago, Wychmaster said:

 

On the other hand, as far as I know, the Vikhr has 1 km more range (IIRC),

Nope in dcs you can shoot exactly 10km with hellfires

8 hours ago, Amarok_73 said:

For fun Apache, but only if there's my live CP/G with me. For comfort and efficiency definitely Ka-50. The only thing I miss in Kamov is the MWS that was there some time ago, but is removed since a while.

 

The ka50 has never had mws in Dcs.

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Hobel

[Amarok_73]

9 minutes ago, Hobel said:

The ka50 has never had mws in Dcs.

It was already discussed in "old" forum, and it was confirmed that he has. At first couple beginning years there was vocal warnings like "rakieta peredi nizhe", but someone decided, that the version implemented is not the one that was equiped with MWS in reality, so it was removed.

[Hobel]

Ah okay. But now he comes again

[Amarok_73]

Just now, Hobel said:

Ah okay. But now he comes again

Eventualy