No Radar warning, no radar guidance, no radar SAMs?

[Guest]

In sum there are strong evidence that Ka-50 prototype was flight-tested with full Vitebsk suite including Pastel RWR but not publicly. So I do not see any reason to equip in-game Ka-50 with absolutely inadequate ECM capabilities - even Mak-UFM MAWS and PPR-26 chaff decoys...

 

Speaking for myself, I admire and appreciate ED's approach with the DCS series of modeling only what is known to be real and can be implemented fully. I do NOT want ED to start inserting random functionality into the helicopter that may or may not exist.

 

You say there is "strong evidence" that the KA-50 was flight tested with the suite. Sorry, but that is not good enough for me. I would only want ED to implement this system if, and only if: (1) there is unequivocal definitive proof of this; (2) there is complete and accurate documentation regarding the exact functioning of this system; AND (3) ED has the time and resources to implement the system exactly according to such documentation without delaying the progress of any other DCS modules.

 

So far, I have seen no reason to believe that any of these requirements have been met, let alone all of them. Sorry, I want a a realistic simulation of the chopper that exists, even if that may be less capable than others. In the same way, I would MUCH prefer an accurate simulation of the AH-64/A, rather than a hacked together AH-64/D in which not all information about the systems is available.

[Guest]

Otherwise I wait for your kamikaze reports from DCS campaing!

 

No need, I am doing just fine in the campaign, thank you. I seem to not have that big of a problem...

 

In any event, I am a person that enjoys simulations for accurately reproducing the strengths and limitations of the real thing. I don't need to always "win" or have the best equipment on the battlefield. Part of the fun (for me at least) is to figure out the best way to work with the tools I am given. If I get shot down, thats ok...real pilots get shot down too. In the same way, in racing simulations I do not just choose the fastest car. Maybe I am just weird.

[Frederf]

Are the di-pole countermeasures anti laser or anti radar?

[GGTharos]

Orrrr those of us who do it right just uh ... don't ... suck... at flying a somewhat limited rotary explosive landscaping delivery truck in a slightly more challenging environment.

 

So if you fly successfully against NATO forces screened by radar guided SAMs that means something must be screwed-up with their implementation. No way, buddy! :doh:

[GGTharos]

Learn english :D

[Focha]

Interesting discussion. But I think you are over reacting big time. Chill down a bit. You are making it sound like this simulation is not good enough because it does not have a RWR system and you wanted it because some Ka50 test bed aircraft had it. I have to agree with Wombat78's three rules. And I rather prefer to have a 10 (even 20) years old realistic simulation than having a 5 or more recent years guess work simulation. And as someone said provide detailed information and documents about those systems and maybe ED will try to implement it or not.

 

Best regards and I hope you are a reasonable person to see what you are saying here or some will might think you are just a kid behind some magazines and books of the expertie and consider that as not being the physical age.

[Arakahn]

wow...

[Guest]

So you have two things to choose:

 

- flying real but clearly outdated Ka-50 without useful ECM suite in therefore unrealistic campaign against NATO forces because in reality you would have no chance to survive such suicidal missions

 

- flying sightly unrealistic Ka-50 with RWR system in such campaign with realistic game balance

 

That is an incredibly easy choice. I would ALWAYS choose #1. Black Shark includes a full mission and campaign editor. If I think the campaign is not realistic, I can (and do) make and fly my own missions that are realistic or can edit the existing ones. If, however, one were to choose your #2, then there is NOTHING anyone could do to make a realistic simulation.

 

To be honest, the campaign is really a very minor part of the whole package IMHO. I think of it as a good introduction to the sim, but the long-term future will be based on user missions.

 

Let me make my position crystal clear. If ED were to take your approach of making things "slightly unrealistic" in the name of "game balance", then I would not play it, period. This is not, and should never be, a RTS game where unit strength is tweaked for playability and balance. I am very pleased that thus far ED seems not to be taking your preferred approach, and gives me a lot of hope for the series.

[haigotron]

complaints@kamov.com

 

i think you should email them

[PoleCat]

:crazy:

[uhoh7]

it's an imperfect situation, hehe.

 

The sim is fine now in the GOC enviroment. We don't have the RWR which Kamov would undoubtably have employed if the prototype had ever been mass produced. We have AI wingman who are ready to look ahead for us, we have a zoom feature, and we have less than totally deadly SAM threats.

 

Considering the lack of realtime intel on the battlefield maybe it all balances out.

 

I would prefer ED works on AI, and DMs for the main targets than RWR right now, even though a working RWR ( as seen in Mi-24s or whatever) is no more fantasy than employing a prototype in combat and proceeding with little input from scouts or ground forces.

 

It's a strange bird, but lots of fun.

 

 

PS Wombat, I hope you'll post up some of your missions a some point.

Edited January 20, 2009 by uhoh7

[2win_TOWR]

That is all from me now. :thumbup:

 

 

Good choice! :cheer3nc:

[Focha]

Plus I think that for many of us, the real deal is on multiplayer. And those missions are "made by user" so Ka50 fits just perfect to the role. I didn't fly the campaign nor any offline ED made mission (forgive me ED guys) because I found multiplayer online flying the ultimate deal. And them you kill two rabbits at once. AI and campaign.

 

Best regards.

[tusler]

Chaff will not help you when the A10 unloads it canon on you either. :music_whistling:

[Bulletstop]

I have to agree with the realism, I have made several mission with Roland and another Brit sam and yes I did get shot down with no warning, I am assuming I was tagged by the radar. All that meant to me is I need to be a smart lawnmower :). if this is based on the time frame I am thinking early to late 80's it is on par with what I know from my days in the service.

I salute you on a very fine sim and please do not change how you are making this. it is fine the way it is.

Bullet

[Frederf]

- flying real but clearly outdated Ka-50 without useful ECM suite in therefore unrealistic campaign

 

- flying sightly unrealistic Ka-50 with RWR system in such campaign with realistic game balance

 

I see your point. The Russian military would not send an aircraft suited for anti-insurgency operations into a conventional conflict without modifying it for the task or at the very least not tasking it with the kind of things that the ED missions require.

 

A current configuration in a fantasy environment can be rather unrealistic in terms of result.

[hannibal]

You can load chaff in the payload screen. I tried it against a SM-2 missle and it seemed to work pretty good....unfortunately the ship had more SM-2's than I had chaff......

 

so do what the noobs do, put it in god mode and get unlimited chaff?

[GGTharos]

Actually the Russians did send their RWR-less helis into Georgia.

 

Further, the ED-provided campaigns have very few if any radar guided SAMs.

[skypirate]

Of course! Yet we have to play is such environment because Russian Army went bankrupt and now has heloes w/o any working ECM similar to Mi-4AW almost 50 years ago.

 

Yes, very smart idea!

 

 

 

Yo brother, as it was said before you can file in a complaint to the Rissian Ministry of Defence :thumbup: you know, maybe some real live Ka50 pilots will thank you at the end of the day.....

[uhoh7]

w/o any working ECM similar to Mi-4AW almost 50 years ago.

 

;)

 

found a beautiful image of one hound varient

 

http://forum.valka.cz/attachments/11563/P6010159.JPG

[ZaltysZ]

So if you fly successfully against NATO forces screened by radar guided SAMs that means something must be screwed-up with their implementation. No way, buddy! :doh:

 

Why? Maybe mission was well planned. Radar isn't super X-Ray device, it can't see through obstacles. As you may noticed we are flying in mountainous region in DCS. Not much use from radar if mountain is between it and you, unless you are cruising over the peaks of mountains which is very bad idea. Every machine sucks unless it is used properly; and in case of modern warfare usage of most machines must be combined with actions of other machines: there is no Airwolf stuff.

[geogob]

Rokosowsky, I think there something fundamental about military acquisitions, logistics and reality you do not understand.

 

Of course everyone will agree with you that sending aircraft without proper ECM equipment against ANY enemy forces with SAM capabilities is far from being ideal. Regardless if the opposing forces are Chinese, NATO, Russian or what ever. I thing most of us, including moderators and developers, understood your point and, for the most part, even agreed with you. Sending these aircraft in areas covered by SAM is not ideal. It is not safe.

 

You are right.

 

Best course of action will always to keep the aircraft out of danger until the SAM threats can be neutralized.

 

The reality is in fact (and that's especially the case during a military conflict) far from the ideal picture-book theory. Rules change and need to be flexible. Do aircraft without ECM equipment go into dangerous areas? I'm pretty sure they have to, because you don't always have any alternatives.

 

There are some conflict areas where you would see Canadian helicopters with bullet holes patched with duct tape. That's not ideal. That's not safe, but it had to be done.

 

In short, my point is that even if you do think that all modern military aircraft should be equipped with proper ECM equipment (and again, you are probably right), it doesn't change the reality that not all modern military aircraft have this luxury. Nor does it change the fact that they may be used in situations where SAM threats are possible.

 

It all comes down to a question of budget, logistics, politics, ever lasting upgrade schedules, etc. That the life of military development. I'm not familiar with Russian programs, but I'm fairly sure that once an upgrade program starts, it could easily take a decade to see any changes on the aircraft. Nothing is plug-n-play in the military world. Changes are slow.

 

 

Finally, I think you should take some time to review your attitude. You are clearly pulling out the smart ass act I've seen a bit too often around the internet by now. I'm sure it served you well in other situations, but here you are talking with a group of developers who, clearly, put a lot of effort into research and documentation.

 

Their argument is simple. They basically said, "we do not have any information describing these systems for the Ka-50, hence we didn't model any". On a simulator where realism is the key, their approach is a valid one and hardly deniable because, to the best of their knowledge, it's right. I don't understand what's so hard to understand about this :s

 

If you have serious information to provide, go ahead. But again, don't start babbling about this or that other aircraft that has the system or how much it would be nonsense to use the aircraft without it or even that it has been tested. All those facts that may be true or not do not provide any useful information on the state of the fleet of Ka-50 at any point in time. Even if you are right, the information you provide is not enough to conclude in the context of a realism-based simulator.

 

EDIT: corrected few obvious typos

Edited January 20, 2009 by geogob

[ZaltysZ]

- mentioned Ka-50 was tested with new Vitebsk suite

 

- publicly tested system included more protection devices (MAWS, infrared jammer, chaff decoys) than we get in DCS Ka-50

 

- anti-radar devices could be installed on this machine (RWR, radar jammer) so it is very probable it was tested with them secretly

 

Where is: "affirmed for usage", "is installed"? No one argues that you are not right about the carried tests, however where are result of these tests and what decisions were made based on these results? Lots of stuff can be tested, but this doesn't mean that it can make to serial production.

[AlphaOneSix]

After reading this thread, I am eagerly awaiting the AH-64A module so we can go through all of this all over again about it's lack of flares or air-to-air missiles. :D

[Feuerfalke]

After reading this thread, I am eagerly awaiting the AH-64A module so we can go through all of this all over again about it's lack of flares or air-to-air missiles. :D

 

Luckily you don't modell the D-version, so there is no need to discuss A2A-missiles.

 

But I'm also looking forward to the Apache-module. But not to start discussions, but to be able to detect enemy radar. :D