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

[GGTharos]

Yes 2win TOWR :D

 

The theory is that you do SEAD and Air superiority before the helis go in.

 

This is 'easy enough' when facing a lesser force.

 

In the case of an East-West scenario it would be a case of properly positioning your assets, and it would still all end up being one huge clash/furball/fireball/somethinghorrible just due to the sheer amount of forces used, not to mention tacnukes.

 

The density of combattants would be so high, and there'd probably be so much crap in the air that in this particular case, the RWR might not be -that- important (which doesn't mean it couldn't save your life) but I'm just guessing. Also, NATO SHORAD was mainly MANPADS heater-type stuff, though ROLAND and RAPIER were available (but I think Rapier is not pure radar).

[2win_TOWR]

But honestly, what radar guided systems the U.S. have? Patriot und maybe Hawk. (seeing from the point of view, the U.S. is the main opponent) I dont think those Sytems, would and could be used against Helicopters. And even if there where some in your target area, you would stay so close over ground as it is possible.

It remains the threat from above, the fighters.

But you are a helicopter in NOE-flight with a speed below 100 knots. For most doppler radars u would be invisible, just because they would exfiltrate you, because you could be a fast moving car.

It is a fact, that fast moving cars on a highway would cause numerous contacts on, so called "look down shoot down" radars, when they are travelling with mor then 150 km/h. So there must be a minimum speed, which is detectable.

Even your rotor should prevent you from detection, cause the Doppler detects Movements over ground, not movement on itself.

If you are on your way in this conditions, a fighter can only detect you visual. And that means, he will use short range IR-Missiles or more probably guns.

So after all, i dont see any need to have a RWR on board.

[CE_Mikemonster]

But honestly, what radar guided systems the U.S. have? Patriot und maybe Hawk. (seeing from the point of view, the U.S. is the main opponent) I dont think those Sytems, would and could be used against Helicopters. And even if there where some in your target area, you would stay so close over ground as it is possible.

It remains the threat from above, the fighters.

But you are a helicopter in NOE-flight with a speed below 100 knots. For most doppler radars u would be invisible, just because they would exfiltrate you, because you could be a fast moving car.

It is a fact, that fast moving cars on a highway would cause numerous contacts on, so called "look down shoot down" radars, when they are travelling with mor then 150 km/h. So there must be a minimum speed, which is detectable.

Even your rotor should prevent you from detection, cause the Doppler detects Movements over ground, not movement on itself.

If you are on your way in this conditions, a fighter can only detect you visual. And that means, he will use short range IR-Missiles or more probably guns.

So after all, i dont see any need to have a RWR on board.

 

I remember reading about F-15's picking up cars on radar along the autobahn in Germany lol (no speed limits in some places!**)

 

**Edit: That wasn't for you TOW, obviously!

[GGTharos]

But honestly, what radar guided systems the U.S. have? Patriot und maybe Hawk.

 

HAWK is retired, now it's PATRIOT in many forms (PAC2, GEM+, PAC-3) and Stinger, as well as the MEADS/THAAD infrastructure.

And yes, they are all very, very dangerous IF used correctly in a coordinated manner.

 

(seeing from the point of view, the U.S. is the main opponent) I dont think those Sytems, would and could be used against Helicopters. And even if there where some in your target area, you would stay so close over ground as it is possible.

 

They could be used to help track the helis and relay info to highly mobile Avenger/SLAMRAAM systems ...

 

It remains the threat from above, the fighters.

But you are a helicopter in NOE-flight with a speed below 100 knots. For most doppler radars u would be invisible, just because they would exfiltrate you, because you could be a fast moving car.

 

No, it will detect your rotors, and because your ROTOR moves much faster than a car, it will display your heli; it can tell your heli apart from cars because of this.

 

It is a fact, that fast moving cars on a highway would cause numerous contacts on, so called "look down shoot down" radars, when they are travelling with mor then 150 km/h. So there must be a minimum speed, which is detectable.

 

And this speed is zero. On the ground, landed even - as long as your rotors are turning you are a target.

 

Even your rotor should prevent you from detection, cause the Doppler detects Movements over ground, not movement on itself.

 

See here you made a wrong assumption. The rotor will ALWAYS have a very large velocity towards you ;)

 

If you are on your way in this conditions, a fighter can only detect you visual. And that means, he will use short range IR-Missiles or more probably guns.

So after all, i dont see any need to have a RWR on board.

 

Blackhawks flying at 200' were shot down by 2 F-15's. One by AIM-120, the other AIM-9. Real life blue-blue incident.

[FADM Stern GNSF]

I have found this whole thread extreamly fasinating, as I am a helo junky and love this sim (have played Apache, Longbow, Commanche 4 etc). As for the whole RWR discussion, I think a bit too much importance has been placed on it. Dont get me wrong, I would be ok if the KA-50 had one (if realistic), but the F-16 has one and I personally dont find it that usefull. (let me explain with my VERY limited knowledge, and please correct me if I am wrong).

The RWR in an F-16 will show you radiating contacts, and warn you (with an annoying tone). You get this EVEN if no weapon has been fired, or even if your out of the weapons range. I find it really only usefull for picking up enimy fighters.

As for SAM's, if I am not wrong (may be, as I dont know the realism level implemented in F4 AF), SAM's have a MINIMUM level their radar units can search and fire at. In F4, if you fly at 100 feet, the only sam that will EVER hit you are the small ones (SA-13 and hand held).

If this is indead the case, a chopper flying low would be safe from most radar guided SAM's (when flying the longbow I held altitude at 28 feet almost exclusively).

 

Now if my assumptions are right (and I must add, I am no military weapons expert, just an average realistic sim inthusiest, who by the way is really bad at spelling), then the benifit of the RWR system would probably be outwieghed by the cost.

 

Anyway, I love this forum, as I learn a ton of stuff every day, and get almost instant help when i get stuck (which is a lot). You people are the best!!!!

[GGTharos]

Guys, let's lay this one out straight:

 

The Ka-50 does not have an RWR. This is NOT a good thing, and it is not useless. It is actually useful, because radar threats happen. They might be relatively rare or avoidable in the environment it flies, but the same can be said for an Apache, which DOES have an RWR and they found it useful.

 

The fact of the matter is this: The Ka-50 does NOT come equipped with RWR and Russia DOES send helis without RWR into combat.

 

This part above is not up for debate.

 

Whether you think it's right or wrong of them to do so, and for what reasons, is. But the FACT that they are sent in like this IS NOT.

 

So let's not confuse the issue and become apologists for lack of this isntrument. Simply know you lack it and how you can try to cope with this.

[CE_Mikemonster]

I'm with you there Tharos.

 

FADM Stern GNSF, I can see where you're coming from, but it's a lot more than that on a fast mover, especially a fighter.

 

AMRAAMs for instance don't need the firer to be 'locked on' (that horrible panic tone). The same can apply for SAM's.

[LupinYonder]

I think we should really be talking about the lack of an IR camera for the shval or the lack of radar for detecting ground targets both of which im sure would be more useful than RWR ;-)

 

<jokes>

[geogob]

And thats the Point! If a conflict would show, that a RWR on the KA-50 is really needful, they would equip it.

 

That's not how it works. Again, as I said, I'm not expert in Russian military logistics, but if it's anything like here, such a retrofit may take years - even if a major conflict breaks out.

 

It's also quite certain the helos would be deployed regardless. As it was mention above, that was the case in the conflict where the Ka-50 was used.

Edited January 21, 2009 by geogob

[FADM Stern GNSF]

Well, Im no expert, but there are a lot of things Im sure combat personell wished they had but didnt. Unfortunatly, you dont always get what you want in life. Aside from the debate over IF or IF NOT the Black Shark has, had, or should have a RWR, the main point of the whole thread is being missed, even though the developer answered it early on.

 

IF a modeler or developer DOES NOT have the data, they can either "fake it and assume", or just ignore that part. I think the game developers did a fantastic job here with this game, especially since "true sims" are not money making giants like the archade games. True realistic sim players are a fractional and dying breed, with the vast majority of game players being archade players that move from one game to another as fast as they are pumped out. I myself play only sims, the more real the better (and since Im really bad at BS after a week, I know they did a good job).

 

Im my humble opinion, if you dont have the "imperical data" for a system, to keep realism you have no choice but to not worry about it instead of guessing at what the system "should do" and "should work like". We must remember that the military don't (and shouldn't) release details on state of the art system, as most of there current stuf is.... surprisingly enough.... CLASIFIED. To this day, although modled, the exact crush depth, speed and ADCAP perameters for both the Seawolf and LA class submarines are not known. When Janes released 688(i) and when Sonalyst released Sub Command and Dangerous waters later, these points were "guessed" at (as obviously, you have to use something or the game wouldnt be).

 

So, what is in this game seems modeled perfectly from what I see, and I am very happy with it. I sure didnt stop playing Falcon 4 because the MLU version didnt model the drag chute or the Fire Suppression systems were not modeled!

Edited January 21, 2009 by FADM Stern GNSF

[2win_TOWR]

 

No, it will detect your rotors, and because your ROTOR moves much faster than a car, it will display your heli; it can tell your heli apart from cars because of this.

 

 

 

And this speed is zero. On the ground, landed even - as long as your rotors are turning you are a target.

 

 

 

See here you made a wrong assumption. The rotor will ALWAYS have a very large velocity towards you ;)

 

I have served in the Bundeswehr-Luftwaffe from 1996-2000 in Neuburg a.D. working on the J-79, and i can remember myself about the frustration of those F-4 Jockeys not to be able to lock on those little Bo-105 and even the UH-1D (from Roth which is pretty nearby) when they have gone NOE with around 120 km/h or 65 kn.

 

So detection maybe, but locking was pretty impossible. When the choppers went along the A-9 freeway, they lost the contact totally, just because of all these cars that went faster. The APG-65 just filtered them out.

 

Also those Rotorblades were made of some kind of composite material, which makes the targeting even more difficult.

 

But i dont know the performance of todays fighter radars???

 

 

 

Blackhawks flying at 200' were shot down by 2 F-15's. One by AIM-120, the other AIM-9. Real life blue-blue incident.

 

Yeah, maybe it was possible because of their speed over ground??? Also AIM-9 indicates a visual detection.

 

 

 

 

 

Btw.

 

excuse my english, its not my native language

[GGTharos]

I have served in the Bundeswehr-Luftwaffe from 1996-2000 in Neuburg a.D. working on the J-79, and i can remember myself about the frustration of those F-4 Jockeys not to be able to lock on those little Bo-105 and even the UH-1D (from Roth which is pretty nearby) when they have gone NOE with around 120 km/h or 65 kn.

 

You are correct, but it is because of old Radar. Don't try the same with an F-15C or modern F-16C variant, you'll eat an AIM-120 where you stand :D (Or in some cases, a GBU!)

 

So detection maybe, but locking was pretty impossible. When the choppers went along the A-9 freeway, they lost the contact totally, just because of all these cars that went faster. The APG-65 just filtered them out.

 

In Iraq an F-15E engaged landed helicopters with GBUs, however, they had locked onto and tracked them with the A2A radar mode, and slaved the targeting pod to the radar target, not vice versa!

 

Also those Rotorblades were made of some kind of composite material, which makes the targeting even more difficult.

 

So are today's fighters, bombers and airliners, at least in part ... ;) I suppose the composite would reduce the RCS.

 

 

But i dont know the performance of todays fighter radars???

 

Much .. better and different, however this does not detract from your knowledge. IN general engaging a low flying target is not easy - this is why cruise missiles for example are a problem. Also at the very elast, for some weapons (Especially pre-AMRAAM generation) might have trouble engaging a low-flying heli, despite the fighter's ability to track it.

 

 

Yeah, maybe it was possible because of their speed over ground??? Also AIM-9 indicates a visual detection.

 

While they were moving at cruising speed (120kts), I don't think it really matters much. Yes, both were 'VID'ed' from 6000' and then the eagles dove to attack. One eagle used a 120, the other a 9, weapon selection was most likely based on range.

 

You can google for this sad incident :(

 

 

Btw.

 

excuse my english, its not my native language

 

No problem, your english is very good.

[geogob]

Btw.

 

excuse my english, its not my native language

 

No excuse required. I don't think that many people here have english as their native language.

 

When you say J-79, you mean like, the J-79 GE engine?

[BRraptor]

Here's a link to the NIKE missile flight page:

 

http://ed-thelen.org/flight.html

 

I suggest perusing the website in general, there's a HUGE amount of info on the NIKE.

Sure, it's an older SAM, but physics are not magical, and considerations are similar today even though the numbers change.

 

Thanks a lot! Is that kind of info "real virtual" pilots should know.

 

Can you upload your browser bookmarks? :book:

[uhoh7]

Regarding AH64A and flares.

 

Tonite I was dealing with them quite a bit, in several GOC deliberate attack missions.

 

One was an assault on a town near the sea--big town. The apaches came in to try and save the place. They sure seemed to have flares to me.

 

I was watching on the TV, and they were throwing stuff out like crazy--very easy to see.

 

Guess it could be chaff, but was very visible.

 

Self correction---flares were coming from AH64D not A, sorry.

[hoorah]

1. I have currently flown on 2 USAF helos, well, 1 helo and one tilt-rotor. Both have RWR. RWR not being useful is a farce. RWR first tells you azmith to a transmitting radar...very useful. I will put terrain between him and I. 2nd it tells u the radars mode (gives an audible tone equating to search, track, missle guidance). Search = no big deal; track = big deal and chaff is going out. MG and its GTFO and holler for any SEAD asset. The RWR also has a visual representation of the above. Not knowing if a missile is actually inflight, doesn't matter, they locked you up. You have to honor the threat.

 

2. Having flown training missions vs the F-15C, it will eat your lunch. A. F-4 radar, old and not very advanced. B. F-15 has Look Down, Shoot Down (so ground clutter is not a big deal). I bet the Blackshark Fuselage has a very large radar cross section. No I don't have any discovery channel weblinks, but there are no stealth traits in its design. C Doppler effect. If you are in a hover, if you exclude the blades, that might work for a stationary SAM radar, but fighter aircraft are moving, and there will always be some doppler effect. You can also doo 200kts vs the sam radar, and if you put it in a constant turn that keeps a constant distance, he will most likely lose you. If a fighter is chasing you, I guarantee he will turn off any doppler decluttering.

 

3. Composite blades do not mean radar obsorbant.

 

4. Sending non RWR into Georgia. I am believe they would send both RWR helos into Georgia with non-rwr equipped helos. And if I was on one of those non rwr equipped helos, I would be supporting the ground forces, not "deep in enemy lines looking for targets." Leave deep penetration in an IADS or heavy SAM umbrella to the Fast movers. No RWR doen't make it a bus, you just have to be smart about your tactics. Helos vs Strat Sams is dumb (HAWK, Patriot, SM2, SA-2, SA-6, SA-20, etc). They will eat your lunch. They have Home on Helicopter modes. You can manage vs the small, tactial Radar Guided Sams (SA-8, 2s6, Roland, etc). Its all about tactics.

 

If we get an Apache add-on, I just hope the player and developer scenarios are from a relevant time frame. No flares = dumb these days. Back in the A model days with IRCM, vs an Sa-7, you had a chance. Now, as those poor guys have learned in OIF, the more advanced MANPADS can kill apaches pretty easily. So now they have flares. Now they are looking at a better IRCM system. It is definetly a realistic sim. Lets have realistic scenerios.

[CE_Mikemonster]

If we get an Apache add-on, I just hope the player and developer scenarios are from a relevant time frame. No flares = dumb these days. Back in the A model days with IRCM, vs an Sa-7, you had a chance. Now, as those poor guys have learned in OIF, the more advanced MANPADS can kill apaches pretty easily. So now they have flares. Now they are looking at a better IRCM system. It is definetly a realistic sim. Lets have realistic scenerios.

 

x2, great input.

[Frederf]

If you are in a hover, if you exclude the blades, that might work for a stationary SAM radar, but fighter aircraft are moving, and there will always be some doppler effect.

 

There would be the same Doppler effect as the entire Earth around it so wouldn't it be hard to pick out a stationary helicopter relative to a stationary Earth? It doesn't matter that the jet is flying at the helicopter to cause motion since you need relative motion to pick anything out with Doppler.

[GGTharos]

And those rotors move bloody fast relative to the earth!

However there are some radar implementations that use some sort of subtractive clutter filtering, rather than doppler techniques.

 

And no, Apaches do not have flares - at least not according to any site, including official US ARMY sites, and I'm pretty sure I can go verify this through a lack of funds to buy flares for apaches as well.

[Frederf]

He said "if you exclude the blades."

[arneh]

And no, Apaches do not have flares - at least not according to any site, including official US ARMY sites, and I'm pretty sure I can go verify this through a lack of funds to buy flares for apaches as well.

 

I think you meant to say that A-models didn't have flares. The D-models do carry flares (at least sometimes).

 

And I don't believe it's because of lack of funds that the A-models didn't have flares. They probably calculated that ground cover and the IR-jammer sufficed. And I've also heard that the flares were known to hit the tail rotor, or start brush fires at the altitudes the Apache operates, so at least in peace time it was best to avoid using them even if they had been carried.

[AlphaOneSix]

It was believed that, at the time, the ALQ-144 in combination with the "Black Hole" IR suppressors would be capable of defeating all current (at the time) IR missile threats.

[danger]

You can call it "lack of realism" when the real Ka-50s in the Russian military are equipped with RWR. Seeing as they are not at this time, let's call it "realism."

 

they do have RWR,

 

http://www.pmulcahy.com/helicopters/russian_attack_helicopters.htm

http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/ka-50.php

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ka50/

http://www.guncopter.com/ka50/

the list goes on......

Edited February 5, 2009 by danger

[Zembla]

http://www.pmulcahy.com/helicopters/russian_attack_helicopters.htm

 

they do have RWR, look to this link and in particular the combat equipment section

 

Everyone can dig up one link to prove a point. It's only when all links combined tell pretty much the same story that it becomes a credible source. It's the problem students are facing too. The internet offers a plethora of information, but there's a lot more chaff than wheat.

 

Now I'm not saying your source isn't credible. I'm just saying that Kamov, and the expertise of the experts employed by Eagle Dynamics, is more than sufficient to cover this area.

 

I find it pretty bizarre how people can keep coming up with information or views, thinking that would suddenly make it a conclusive mistake of ED of not fitting Black Shark with an RWR. It's done deliberately. Mod it if you don't like it. Wether it's logical or not is a decision they have had to make, entirely independent from your views. Sure you can try to influence it, but in the end it's their call.

 

I'm just amazed by how people think Eagle Dynamics somehow didn't have the full picture when they built the helo.

 

-Z

[GGTharos]

Not even - for example, Jane's published a bunch of stuff about the Su-33 being armed with a plethora of A2G munitions and R-77s, and the Moskit. It turned out that this was an upgrade package that was never funded for the Su-33, leaving it to be the interceptor we know from LO (more or less). But not only did Jane's not retract this information, countless sites copied that info as valid!

 

Everyone can dig up one link to prove a point. It's only when all links combined tell pretty much the same story that it becomes a credible source.