Hellfires against air targets

[Raptor9]

13 minutes ago, Goose489 said:

This is an excerpt from Army Technology's Apache page.

That doesn't make it true. That site is the same as wikipedia, globalsecurity.org, deagel, etc. They all circular report the same "facts" about military hardware, often word for word as they copy the data from each other. But just because the internet says so, doesn't make it true.

As this thread has varied greatly from the original topic, I am moving on. Believe what you want. 

[LuseKofte]

Author mention iglas , as an asset for the KA 50. 
It is a waste of time using those better use the time getting a lock on opposing chopper and use cannons

Edited December 6, 2023 by LuseKofte

[TheGhostOfDefi]

@Raptor9 Grant me one last question: when we eventually get the Air to air radar mode does this allow cueing weapons or is it Situational Awareness only? 

[Donglr]

7 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

It is not a matter of want. The AH-64D in US Army has never been capable of employing Stingers or any air-to-air missiles. Such a feature would be as unrealistic as giving the AH-64 AGM-65 missiles.

Further, there are no public references for how these weapons function in any of the foreign variants of the AH-64 that have been modified to do so.

So Jane's Longbow 2 lied to us?  I still remember the double circle seeker symbol zigzagging across the IHADSS

[Raptor9]

32 minutes ago, TheGhostOfDefi said:

@Raptor9 Grant me one last question: when we eventually get the Air to air radar mode does this allow cueing weapons or is it Situational Awareness only? 

Unfortunately, I don't know what is planned in that regard.

[Hobel]

vor 1 Stunde schrieb LuseKofte:

Author mention iglas , as an asset for the KA 50. 
It is a waste of time using those better use the time getting a lock on opposing chopper and use cannons

Absolutely Iglas are also more effective against airplanes, I've already caught a few in a quick flyby.

[NeedzWD40]

6 hours ago, hotrod525 said:

So Flechette is realy the best we can hope for Air - Air  ? I've read on a site that apparently you can set the fuze time on these, probably trought LRF ?

Yes, the burst range is ~150m from set range at launch. So you could manually set a range and put a burst of rockets ahead of an aerial target like flak. You would likely have to manually range the rockets to get this just right, otherwise the speed of motion is likely to rapidly outpace the burst distance.

5 hours ago, TheGhostOfDefi said:

I personally hope that the hellfires get a bit of love to get a bit better against air targets. I don’t expect AIM-9X! Slight tracking improvements would be nice..

4 hours ago, TheGhostOfDefi said:

I had some close calls with Hellfires where they missed by cm´s. No i dont expect a Proximity fuze but it was like a last second loss of track. I dont have evidence of this in any way right now and i dont see this as substantial enough as to direct any work to this. 

Other than that i agree with you that those arent A-A Missiles. Altough i would like to know what they changed for the L to use it as S-A Missile. Had to have some reason why to not use the Stinger.

I was just was throwing in my 5 cent. (Or how this saying was)

So while I believe that there should be a few improvements to both the K and L's ability to track and hit aerial targets, I have no real evidence of such; or at least, I have no real open source evidence that can be shared in that regard. I can say that within DCS, I have utilized both K and L models as a last-ditch effort to defend myself from enemy aerial threats, both rotary and fixed, but the PK is incredibly small as aiming points are ridiculously sensitive. By that I mean if I don't put the IAT track exactly on the nose of a Mi-24, the missile will harmlessly sail past the aircraft, but if I get the IAT perfectly on the nose, it's almost a hit every time. The same is true of fixed wing aircraft, which is quite hard depending on aspect and maneuvering.

The AGM-114L adapted for surface-to-air use does have a different warhead and proximity fuze, but this is a way more modern variant (2016+) and wouldn't be available to us anyways.

I have a larger problem with the AI's ability to perfectly track with AT-6/9/16, as even if you hit the launch platform, those missiles will continue to happily plow into your face. On top of this, they're able to track at a rate greater than I as a player can with those same weapons.

3 hours ago, Goose489 said:

I apologize it is the AH-64A/D variant that employs the sidewinder and stinger.

No. This has been covered extensively. Sidewinder: Never. Ever. Pure fantasy. Lies. Deception. Stinger: AH-64D's made by Japan. AH-64Es of various export models. There were plans and indications that AH-64Es in US Army service would be upgraded to use Stinger on the primary hardpoints by v6, but I have no idea if that went through or got put on the backburner. Regardless, since we have a 2005-2010 era AH-64D, this does not apply for our variant.

Further reading:

38 minutes ago, Donglr said:

So Jane's Longbow 2 lied to us?  I still remember the double circle seeker symbol zigzagging across the IHADSS

Per the above, at the time of the Jane's Longbow series (as well as Digital Integration's Apache Longbow, Gunship 2000, et al), the AH-64D was envisioned to employ ATAS on the wingtips. Changing priorities, budget, envisioned strategy, etc. modified this requirement and we got CMWS instead. Largely, in the 90s, it was noted that the AH-64's defensive suite was coming up short with evolving threats like MANPADS. This was seen as a greater problem than enemy aircraft.

This topic always seems to come up for a variety of reasons, but largely because the scenarios within DCS don't reflect how the US Army and US military as a whole plan to fight. Let's take a peek at FM 3-04, Chapter 3, page 3-52, section 3-220:

Quote

AIR COMBAT DOCTRINE
3-220. Some basic tenets of air combat doctrine are provided below:
 Avoid. Unless directed by mission orders, aviation forces maneuver to avoid being observed by
threat aircraft. They accomplish this using terrain, cover, concealment, and appropriate
movement techniques to avoid disclosing their location. Aircraft survivability equipment should
be coupled with active measures such as altering routes of flight when threats are detected
beyond visual range.
 Alert. The alert call is critical to the survival of the force. It is transmitted by the aircrew who
first observes the threat. The crew who, at the moment the threat is observed, has the highest
level of situational awareness. The alert is a brief message that instantly raises the awareness of
the force to the presence of a threat, the direction of the threat, and of the response to be taken to
avoid, evade, threaten, or engage the threat. The alert is a command to act.
 Evade. If time and maneuver space permit, friendly RW aircraft should use terrain flight
environments to evade the threat. This action should be used to the advantage of the friendly
force to avoid engagement. High-performance aircraft will encounter problems maintaining sight
of slow moving friendly helicopters as their dive-angle steepens. Crews may also consider
landing their aircraft if space permits and they believe they have not been detected. However,
friendly aircraft should not attempt to evade if maneuver space or aircraft power is inadequate,
or if evading will result in a tail chase.
 Threaten. If the threat initiates aggressive action and avoidance or evasion is not an option,
friendly aircraft should execute appropriate battle drills to orient weapons on the threat. The
threat may break off and avoid engagement at the appearance of a well-coordinated, formidable
defense.
 Engage. If the threat was avoided evaded, or threatened, and the action was found to be
unsuccessful, friendly aircraft must act immediately to engage and neutralize the threat.

Egads! What's this? We're supposed to avoid threats first of all?! Madness! How can I make my ace combat 20 kill streak pwning n00bs in my ultimate attack chopper, the AH-64D when I'm supposed to avoid threats?! This sucks, I want my money back!

Yet as we can see above, engaging threats is a last resort by doctrine. Bear in mind that this is the modern picture and older publications treat the subject differently. However, as we're largely concerned with the modern picture (see: 2005-2010 era AH-64D), we can assume the above applies to our module. Why? Well, because of a few things: 1. Patriot. 2. SHORAD a la MANPADS, Avenger. 3. USAF. 4. USN. 5. USMC. The last three are the important bit, because at any given time, somebody, somewhere, has an AIM-120 (or AIM-9), and several somebodies likely know about enemy air power. Said somebodies want enemy air power dead. Many times over. So throw several pointy nosed fighters (and probably a few blunt nosed as well) at the problem, all chomping at the bit to be the next "chopper popper". Then once enemy air is killed a hundred times over, somebody with a few bombs (and a few cruise missiles) is going to find where enemy air came from and ensure that enemy air will not come from there again. Well, you might have some pigeons and a few vultures eating some good BBQ afterward, but unless you're planning to ingest bird guts (you sicko), they're probably not a concern to your helicopter.

Now, should you, within a fictional DCS scenario, attempt to seek out and engage enemy air? Nothing is stopping you (I've done it), but one must understand that it is an inherently disadvantageous situation to be in. Be prepared to die - a lot.

[hotrod525]

25 minutes ago, NeedzWD40 said:

Lot of text

We must admit the hype around the machine kinda make it to be use the way it is in DCS, just like people would rush frontal assault with Tanks in any game 9 times out of 10.

It is also quite hard to feel somewhat "integrated" into any "maneuvring elements/formations" and so on with DCS at it's current state... hopefully one day with dynamic campaign, but i'm not holding my breath to much as those kinds of thing are hard to acheive  even IRL. 

 

[NeedzWD40]

17 minutes ago, hotrod525 said:

It is also quite hard to feel somewhat "integrated" into any "maneuvring elements/formations" and so on with DCS at it's current state...

That gets into a really complex series of discussion involving policy, strategy, doctrine, scenario, commanders intent, and a host of other factors. I can say it's not impossible to do so as I and some other players have been running scenarios that get into it, but you're not going to easily find it on a random air quake server. To start with, most scenarios are set for a play balance with PvP elements, which means things have to be "fair" - anathema to the aforementioned doctrine. After all, you want each side to feel as if they have a chance at winning and aren't exclusively boxed in as the loser. That means concessions like restricting weapons, forces that are equal, etc. It's an entirely different topic and mostly outside the scope of the present subject.

Without getting too deep into that subject, look for the commander's intent. Without that, you're just playing space invaders with extra steps.

[ShuRugal]

4 hours ago, Goose489 said:

 

This is an excerpt from Army Technology's Apache page.

The Apache attack helicopter can be equipped with air-to-air missiles (Stinger, AIM-9 Sidewinder, Mistral and Sidearm) and the advanced precision kill weapon system (APKWS), formerly known as Hydra, family of guided and unguided 70mm rockets.

www.army-technology.com is not a US DoD or DoA affiliated entity.  They are not a credible source for the technical capabilities of US military hardware at the level of detail being discussed here.

 

The article you are citing appears to be this one: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/apache/?cf-view

That article provides no source for this claim.

Edited December 6, 2023 by ShuRugal

[Goose489]

22 hours ago, ShuRugal said:

www.army-technology.com is not a US DoD or DoA affiliated entity.  They are not a credible source for the technical capabilities of US military hardware at the level of detail being discussed here.

 

The article you are citing appears to be this one: https://www.army-technology.com/projects/apache/?cf-view

That article provides no source for this claim.

 

Thank you for clarifying that.

[Hobel]

Am 6.12.2023 um 19:41 schrieb TheGhostOfDefi:

@Raptor9 Grant me one last question: when we eventually get the Air to air radar mode does this allow cueing weapons or is it Situational Awareness only? 

Helo kill

 

[TheGhostOfDefi]

On 12/6/2023 at 3:03 PM, TheGhostOfDefi said:

I personally hope that the hellfires get a bit of love to get a bit better against air targets. I don’t expect AIM-9X! Slight tracking improvements would be nice..

I want to take that statement back! Now, this thread here encouraged me to test a bit and watch more closely on what happens. I observed that indeed the missiles are tracking very reasonably, but the AI helicopters just pull up hard right before impact!

Furthermore, the damage model of the AI is frustrating, to put it mildly. I had an MI-8 take a Hellfire from approximately 70° top right between the main rotor and engine pack, and yet it is just slightly damaged and even continues operating...

So, as stated here before in this thread by different people (and especially Raptor), you are right!

The conclusion for me is that it's not the Hellfire that is the problem but the state of its environment with the all knowing AI & their Damage Models.

I hope that those problems, which arent new, maybe get addressed in the future.

[ruiner_]

2 hours ago, TheGhostOfDefi said:

Furthermore, the damage model of the AI is frustrating, to put it mildly. I had an MI-8 take a Hellfire from approximately 70° top right between the main rotor and engine pack, and yet it is just slightly damaged and even continues operating...

I've come up behind a human operated hind and my first Lima came in from the top right and smacked into the rotors and engine. The engine smoked a little but kept running with no serious damage. So it's not just the AI damage model. 

[FalcoGer]

I have had lots of success against helicopters, including MI-24 and MI-8 with both SAL and RF hellfires. They need to be either head on or fairly close (3-4km). And any closer, I would switch to gun. When engaging MI-24 you have to be careful about getting shot at in return. It's probably safer to avoid engagements and get someone else to kill it for you if able.

It should be said though that george is utterly useless for A/A engagements as he takes forever to get the crosshair on target and even if he does, he puts the IAT somewhere where it doesn't work properly.

As for flachette, I hope it comes with a fragmentation system that can also be used for other explosives. I found some info for the M255 here. Apparently you (the computer based on range) can set a time delay up to 25s by use of an RC fuze (Resistor-Capacitor), where the discharge of a capacitor triggers the explosive charge, which then pushes a pusher plate out of the rocket tip. Because the rocket is rotating this will disperse 1179 flachettes in a cone shape. Apparently there are also 3 tracers, though I have also seen some videos where it includes an orange dye powder. I wonder how DCS handles people shooting a full salvo of rockets, each containing 1179 projectiles that need to be tracked. I think the simplest solution would be to ray trace from the point of origin in a Gaussian distribution for a few tens of meters and create an impact on the first surface they hit. Ray tracing is cheap, while tracking thousands of 3d objects and calculating intersections is less cheap.

[zerO_crash]

On 12/6/2023 at 8:34 PM, Hobel said:

Absolutely Iglas are also more effective against airplanes, I've already caught a few in a quick flyby.

Iglas work great, they are not the problem - the uneven AI damage model is. An Igla missile will gladly take out a human-controlled or AI-controlled (albeit with realistic damage modelling) aircraft. However, certain older units, will take a multitude of even AT-missiles (that's not only a destruction due to pressure and minor parts penetrating, that is a AT penetrator going through them and exploding inside), and yet fly onwards with no damage. The most prominent units that come to mind are; Mi-28, Chinook, MiG-25, AH-1H Cobra, some of the bigger bombers/transporters, etc...

 

If Iglas wouldn't work, Russians wouldn't use them. As for the rest of the topic, there are people here complaning on things which are not a matter of unit vs. unit, but rather ideology and strategy. It seems that the urge to create a new thread conplaining about lack of equal weaponry with a comparative opponent, is greater, than the urge to open any decent history book or machine-specific document. 
 

I will add a relatively short document (public distribution permitted) on mindset (basic analysis of qualities, operation, application, and mission-set) of AH-64A. Granted, it is the older Apache, but it will give insight into how to think about this platform. For example, the thinking presented here in the thread stipulates meeting every threat head on with a hammer, whilst the document might develop your thinking into being smart about who you pick your fights with, and where. Is it really smart to attempt to engage an Mi-24 or Ka-50, knowing they are faster and more agile at speed? Maybe it's better to hide instead, make use of the dual crew, advanced sensors and ability to choose whether to engage or not? Maybe the Mi-24 will land to deploy a squad of troops, maybe the Ka-50 will come to a hover in full visual. And hell, if they don't, no loss in not having engaged them. Maybe it was better to get on the radio and inform air traffic about it?!

 

We have the modules, now virtual pilot quality must improve. Btw. I fly on the other side of the "curtain", so you are getting some gold info. here.

ADA339637.pdf

Edited February 5, 2024 by zerO_crash

[jubuttib]

On 12/8/2023 at 4:46 PM, TheGhostOfDefi said:

Furthermore, the damage model of the AI is frustrating, to put it mildly. I had an MI-8 take a Hellfire from approximately 70° top right between the main rotor and engine pack, and yet it is just slightly damaged and even continues operating...

Join the club... In the Ka-50 I've tested against a Ka-27 a fair bit, and on one occasion it took 3 IGLAs (4th missed) and 7 Vikhrs (all hit) to down it. AI helis are indeed just ludicrously durable atm.

Wish I was as impervious to damage in my Mi-8, but a single hit from an AK-74 has been enough to incapacitate my engines a couple of times...

Edited February 20, 2024 by jubuttib

[LuseKofte]

Best is Get a lock and use cannons

[Oceandar]

I did shoot down other helos with hellfire in MP but all of it was in PvE server. I also saw someone did shoot a Gazelle with Hellfires in PvP. So it's actually very much doable.
Try shooting it inside 4km and (as already mentioned above) the target not beaming at you. Keep trying and you don't really need stinger and sidewinder.

[SturmVogel]

Hellfire not so bad against front aspect jets (means flying to you). But one big problem is time George needed to 114L lock on jets via TADS. Trying different pilot seat stuff (PHS, FXD, HMD source, LOABL inhibit, 1st and 2nd detent) to lock and transmit target data via HMD, but nothing is working. Square (seeker) following HMD sight, but wont be solid for launch.