FCR detection range

[Widowmaker1974]

On 12/6/2023 at 4:07 PM, Raptor9 said:

One of the key aspects of the AH-64D's FCR system when it was conceived was to be less reliant on other helicopter types to perform its mission in destroying large numbers of tanks and armor. But as @NeedzWD40 mentioned, the advantage of the AH-64D is its ability to work in large groups as a singular fighting force.

Now, this is not a "this aircraft" versus "that aircraft type" sort of rivalry, but rather a different type of fighting style. In the 80's and 90's when the original concept of the AAWWS was being conceived, there were a variety of different unit types doing different missions with different aircraft. You had AH-64's as both attack battalions and as cavalry squadrons, with some differences in doctrine for each. Conversely, you also had OH-58's in both cavalry squadrons and light attack battalions. Again, different mission sets and doctrine. If you had a company of mechanized armor in one valley and an entire regiment of armor in the other, you would obviously send the light attack unit to take on the armor company while the heavy attack battalion takes on the regiment of armor.

If you weren't sure where the enemy was, you could either use a cavalry squadron of AH-64's or one of OH-58D's, or even a combination of the two. Depending on how large the enemy force is anticipated to be, how far you are planning to send your helos, or for how long they need to be out there; this would dictate what capabilities, weapons load, and range/station time you would need, which drives which aircraft types would be best suited.

The bottom line is, don't get locked into only doing a type of mission based on what the first letter of the helicopter designation may be. Use each aircraft in ways that take advantage of their abilities.

Perfectly said...

[FalcoGer]

On 12/9/2023 at 12:32 AM, shagrat said:

That's because you are in a place, you shouldn't be. If you have attack helicopters flying in an environment where they are lit up by multiple SAM batteries, SHORAD and airplanes some SEAD/DEAD and CAP assets did a bad job and the best advice is, evade and get the hell out of Dodge.

You don't always have the luxury of having air dominance. And sitting behind friendly ADUs doesn't get the job done either.

And I found that SEAD/DEAD is often my job more than that of F16s or F18s. As a helicopter I can sneak under enemy fighter cover and with the ability to hide behind trees and buildings with ease, I can get into a position to engage air defenses from short range where an AGM-88C or a cruise missile would have been intercepted and where A10s would've been shot at from long range. Do a pop up attack with LOAL with the laser guided hellfires and you can take out SA-15, SA-8 and SA-19 with relative ease, provided you have a competent gunner/pilot in the other seat. The radar hellfires have made that even more easy.

On the other hand, I can't do CAP (although I did manage to shoot down a Mig-21 and a Mig-29 with the gun once, which was a bit of a crazy thing). And I'd rather have the hornets carry the extra 4 amraams than waste their pylons on HARMs which will be shot down anyway.

And if worst comes to worst, you can just pop up behind a hill, let them launch, and go back down, and repeat until they are out of ammo. Once I spent 20 minutes running a Type 055 out of VLS missiles and then called in a GBU-24 strike to finish it off once it couldn't defend itself anymore.

Nevermind the 7 year old bug where when a Mig 29 locks up someone in syria with a 90° offset to you, you still get the spike for it when sitting in a hardened aircraft hanger in australia.

[shagrat]

Just remember, there are clear mission profiles and tasks for Attack Helicopters and SEAD/DEAD is not a task for AHB or Cav.

Army Air is part of a combined arms force.

In DCS you have the luxury to risk a multi-million dollar asset to play wannabe SEAD, but it doesn't mean it is "a good idea" to be in the thick of an IADS.

If you play realistic missions you should evade those threats, not engage them, focus on your mission and if necessary even abort and fight another day. 

[FalcoGer]

4 hours ago, shagrat said:

it doesn't mean it is "a good idea" to be in the thick of an IADS

Well, I never said that. Of course you work to attack positions at the edge or that are vulnerable. That deep strike stuff is the job for cruise missiles and stealth aircraft.

And when it's my job to attack an artillery position or an armor convoy, I won't run away just because there is an SA-15 sitting there or an SA-8 driving with the armor. If there is a position I can engage them from safely, then that's what I do. I take out the threats to my aircraft first, then engage the armor and/or logistics. I don't see how that wouldn't be realistic. Unless you are russia, you will put air defenses around anything that an attack helicopter would love to attack. And anyone flying an attack helicopter will have to deal with that in one way or another. And since I can't just call artillery on some position, or anything from AI for that matter, and sending fixed wing is putting them in more risk than I would ever be because of the SA-10 30 miles further in, then I'm in the best position for the job.

4 hours ago, shagrat said:

If you play realistic missions

Well, good luck trying to get enough people for a realistic mission, or getting the AI to do anything resembling that. Realism would mean communication and teamwork. And I have a hard enough time finding anyone to report a multicrew sync bug for 15 minutes, let alone find someone to put together a 3 hour realistic operation in the ME and then 20 people to fly it.

On the other hand if the mission designer or some script decided that the SA-10 is just going to sit there and never move even if everything up to it is already smoking piles of scrap metal, then I don't see any issue in popping a few hellfires over a hill on the track radar either.

Obviously I've never been in the armed forces, but from what I can see from DCS, DEAD with the apache is quite doable and even quite safe if you are careful and plan properly. Especially with poorly positioned air defenses. And attacking one or two ADUs that protect a target on the FLOT is just standard fare. You can outrange SA-9, SA-13, SA-19, AAA, ATGMs and manpads easily. the biggest threat is not seeing them and you get surprised. And when we already talk about realism, how about those RPG-7 guys being able to shoot a 90kt helicopter at 1km? that's ridiculous. When I play any game with a rocket launcher, such as ARMA, I can barely hit a stationary target at 300m if the projectile isn't guided. But I really suck anyway, so maybe everyone else can just do it easily.

In DCS the options are limited. Even if you have other people, and say someone who is bored enough to do CA. You are in an attack helicopter and your job is to attack some artillery position. And they have an SA-15 guarding it. What options do you have? you communicate the position and then you can have an air launched cruise missile attack, say a SLAM. You can have someone lob a GBU from low altitude. You can have someone fly over the SA-15 engagement envelope, and probably get picked off by long range SAM or enemy air. You can have someone shoot a HARM and it gets taken out. You can have the CA guy try to fiddle with the terrible interface and get some cruise missiles from a ship over there, but they are 2 minutes apart because... reasons, and they get shot down. You can abort the mission. Or you can just lob 2 laser guided missiles over a hill and take that thing out and if it does shoot at you, you can duck behind the hill again and be completely safe. Given this situation, I don't see any reason to tie up additional resources and/or put others in a more risky position than you yourself would ever be.

To get back on topic though, as I said the biggest risk is getting surprised. Even a BTR-82 can take you down in one hit. Having the radar pick them up will be an additional barrier to getting surprised. While the radar isn't perfect and an absence of contacts doesn't mean it's safe, I think it's a great way to enhance SA and it certainly beats slewing the TADS over every square centimeter of the next woodline. I would still do that, but I can skip that step if the radar already picks something up.

[NeedzWD40]

5 hours ago, shagrat said:

Just remember, there are clear mission profiles and tasks for Attack Helicopters and SEAD/DEAD is not a task for AHB or Cav.

Army Air is part of a combined arms force.

In DCS you have the luxury to risk a multi-million dollar asset to play wannabe SEAD, but it doesn't mean it is "a good idea" to be in the thick of an IADS.

If you play realistic missions you should evade those threats, not engage them, focus on your mission and if necessary even abort and fight another day. 

Actually SEAD is part of modern CAB operations. You can find details in FM 3-04.126, where it touches on the subject several times. Though as you say, it is typically under the auspices of joint operations in achievement of a larger goal. A real world example of this would be Task Force Normandy in ODS. Further, prior to their elimination, platforms like the EH-1H and EH-60A were critical assets in the EW spectrum and capable of degrading or denying effective ADA capabilities.

Pg. C-5:

Quote

Due to their higher operating altitudes and sensors, FW aircraft can often detect AD threats quicker than the attack helicopter force. Actual engagement of these threats is coordinated by the mission commander, as helicopters offer significant advantages in attacking some SEAD targets while FW aircraft can successfully engage others. If specific AD systems are in the area, it may be possible to preplan mutually supporting SEAD actions. Other forms of dedicated SEAD should be considered first, however, since time and fuel may be a limiting factor for the JAAT participants.

As with all things, the situation at hand with the overarching goal will dictate what needs to be done. Flexibility is the key.

18 hours ago, FalcoGer said:

You don't always have the luxury of having air dominance. And sitting behind friendly ADUs doesn't get the job done either.

And I found that SEAD/DEAD is often my job more than that of F16s or F18s. As a helicopter I can sneak under enemy fighter cover and with the ability to hide behind trees and buildings with ease, I can get into a position to engage air defenses from short range where an AGM-88C or a cruise missile would have been intercepted and where A10s would've been shot at from long range. Do a pop up attack with LOAL with the laser guided hellfires and you can take out SA-15, SA-8 and SA-19 with relative ease, provided you have a competent gunner/pilot in the other seat. The radar hellfires have made that even more easy.

And if worst comes to worst, you can just pop up behind a hill, let them launch, and go back down, and repeat until they are out of ammo. Once I spent 20 minutes running a Type 055 out of VLS missiles and then called in a GBU-24 strike to finish it off once it couldn't defend itself anymore.

Some form of temporary airspace superiority is at a minimum assumed, because without that a helicopter's job is that much harder. Not that we can't do so in the game, but we lack a self-escort capability due to the doctrine our module is based upon. You could make up for some of this right now by employing Gazelles with Mistral and hopefully later by OH-58D with ATAS, but neither is a good substitute for a pair of F-15s with competent aircrew.

AGM-88 is not a kill weapon. Employment of AGM-88 should be in waves as part of a suppressive strategy along with decoys and hard kill weapons like CBU-87/97/103/105. One AGM-88 does not SEAD make, nor does it make DEAD. That players view it as such is a failure to understand inherent SEAD-DEAD strategies, as well as certain redundant systems like SA-11.

The AI is a separate issue entirely, though do note that some ADA units have rapid reload and response times, ie SA-11 and SA-6. Further, with growth and changes (as we saw with the adjustment of ADA's ability to target certain weapon classes), we may find ourselves ill-equipped to handle a threat that behaves in a realistic manner - particularly if we've been acclimatized to exploits.

6 minutes ago, FalcoGer said:

Well, I never said that. Of course you work to attack positions at the edge or that are vulnerable. That deep strike stuff is the job for cruise missiles and stealth aircraft...

And this is what the AH-64D was made for: to isolate and engage key threats to enable other elements to achieve an objective. An SA-8, 15, or 19 is a primary target for our weaponry and capabilities, the elimination of which would allow assets like A-10s to engage with relative impunity. Even if such assets aren't available, elimination of these threats allows for greater freedom of movement, which of course is always a good thing. Being unable to call for artillery, fixed wing, or naval support is partially a game issue and partially a scenario issue. It is possible to do such as I have mechanisms in my scenarios to enable various pilot controls of available assets, but such is not always possible with a much larger, disorganized group of players. Lacking this is not the fault of our module, but simply greater issues at play. It will not be the fault of the OH-58D if it is placed in a scenario where it cannot perform its primary task; the same is true of the AH-64D. When we utilize these modules outside of the doctrine they were designed for, we must be prepared to face catastrophic failure - but sometimes it pays off and we learn a few things in the process.

In the end, it doesn't matter if the threat is taken out by a F-16 firing a HARM, a GBU-38 deployed from an A-10, a rocket from an AH-64, or an artillery shell from an M109 - only that the threat is eliminated. Sometimes that's us in the helicopter and sometimes it's the guy at 30,000ft.

The FCR's place in this grand context is merely an assist to an already robust sensor framework. Used properly and it will be an incredible tool. But expecting it to be a magic wand to employ a magic missile will lead to disappointment.

[shagrat]

vor 14 Stunden schrieb NeedzWD40:

Actually SEAD is part of modern CAB operations.

Absolutely, but not as a task for the helicopters... Or let's say only as a desperate measure.

In DCS we have this way too often, that a flight of two AH-64D is "supposed" to slaughter its way through a thicket of air defense units often a whole brigades worth of IADS "to make the mission more tough".

I get that it's just a simulation and we can create whatever suits our preference and have fun, but it is often leading into bad habits and taking risks, that at least IRL would be deemed "unnecessary".

Just my personal opinion here. 

 

 

[NeedzWD40]

On 12/28/2023 at 4:55 AM, shagrat said:

Absolutely, but not as a task for the helicopters... Or let's say only as a desperate measure.

In DCS we have this way too often, that a flight of two AH-64D is "supposed" to slaughter its way through a thicket of air defense units often a whole brigades worth of IADS "to make the mission more tough".

I get that it's just a simulation and we can create whatever suits our preference and have fun, but it is often leading into bad habits and taking risks, that at least IRL would be deemed "unnecessary".

Just my personal opinion here.

 

As the document states, it depends on what needs to be done. Helicopters can absolutely do it and can handle certain threat types better than fixed wing and vice versa. But I do agree that it comes up way too often within DCS, though that's more a scenario design problem as more often than not, it's usually helicopters shoehorned into a fast mover scenario.

Sometimes you gotta compromise to make a fun and compelling scenario, including doing things that are unrealistic. Just need to temper your expectations and be prepared for everything to go haywire in a bad way when it doesn't work out.

[shagrat]

Am 30.12.2023 um 01:26 schrieb NeedzWD40:

As the document states, it depends on what needs to be done. Helicopters can absolutely do it and can handle certain threat types better than fixed wing and vice versa. But I do agree that it comes up way too often within DCS, though that's more a scenario design problem as more often than not, it's usually helicopters shoehorned into a fast mover scenario.

Sometimes you gotta compromise to make a fun and compelling scenario, including doing things that are unrealistic. Just need to temper your expectations and be prepared for everything to go haywire in a bad way when it doesn't work out.

There's a basic role and mission set defined for the Army Air helicopter organization.

It is defined in FM 3-04.111 and FM 3-04.112 (unrestricted).

SEAD/DEAD is not a mission profile for an AttackHelicopterBrigade.

Should an AH team encountering a sneaky SAM battery defend itself and may attack the threat in self defense if opportune? Definitely yes.

Should an AH team evade and sneak around known enemy air defense to reach a battle position from which it can attack the target(s)? Definitely yes.

Should an AH team actively seek out enemy air defenses and SAMs? No! Not unless a dire situation calls for a strike on such a target that cannot be done by any other assets, with less risk.

One sentence in the Field Manual that for me was key to understand, why in DCS it often feels wrong when we roam around to find "worthy prey".

(...)"An ATKHB never fights alone. Attacks are coordinated with other maneuver, combat support, CSS, and joint forces to form a combined arms team. This team surprises and overwhelms the enemy at the point of attack. Attacks may be conducted out of physical contact with other friendly forces but synchronized with their scheme of maneuver, or they may be in direct contact with friendly forces."(...)

Again, this is my take on it. I am sure as with all good plans, in real life they don't last very long if the <profanity> hits the fan, but at least the design consideration for a realistic mission should try to reflect the basic role and doctrine for an aircraft, not that a "special situation" can't call for a creative solution... I mean, they even used Apaches to evacuate downed pilots, in some case, though the AH mission profile isn't exactly CSAR either.

[NeedzWD40]

7 hours ago, shagrat said:

There's a basic role and mission set defined for the Army Air helicopter organization.

It is defined in FM 3-04.111 and FM 3-04.112 (unrestricted).

SEAD/DEAD is not a mission profile for an AttackHelicopterBrigade.

For the record, it's FM 1-112, which while a bit out of date, still serves as the basis for parts of the modern FM 3-04. It's still an interesting document to pick through and probably far more relevant to the doctrine for our module. In this case, I'll point out a couple of entries in 1-112 that are of interest:

Pg. 3-75 (JAAT):

Quote

A portion of the ATKHC will most likely begin the attack by engaging AD targets identified by the scouts during their reconnaissance. The platoon (or the number of aircraft) that is assigned to SEAD and security is determined by the local threat.

Pg. B-2 (Air Assault Security):

Quote

(2) Attack helicopter units. Attack helicopter battalions or companies are capable of performing the missions of air cavalry/reconnaissance units, and conduct these missions when air cavalry units are not available. The attack helicopter units also conduct overwatch and screening of the air assault force during movement along the air axes from PZ to LZ, providing protection against enemy ground fire or attacks by armed helicopters. They provide suppressive fires, SEAD, and may be used as a reserve force to counterattack threats to the AATF.

Pg. F-23 (Deep Operations/Air Assault Security):

Quote

(9) Upon reaching the objective, an ATKHC or air cavalry troop may be responsible for securing the air assault force from both aerial and ground enemy elements in the area of operations determined by the TF commander. If the objective is beyond the range of indirect fires, the aviation commander will have to plan to conduct SEAD using onboard weapon systems, ECM, ECCM, and detection avoidance.

Pg. H-3 (Deep Attacks by Kiowa Warrior ATKHC):

Quote

(4) SEAD. KW ATKHB are organic to light divisions which possess 105 millimeters towed howitzers as their primary delivery system of interdicting fires for lethal SEAD. Deep attacks beyond the supporting range of these weapon systems require direct supporting fires from outside the division (such as Corps) if lethal SEAD is necessary to minimize risks to aircrews en route and in objective area.

So when it comes to SEAD (or really DEAD in this case), the old FM 1-112 has many passages that indicate it would be a tasking depending on planning, resources, intent, etc. It does assume that the planners would have a modicum of common sense not to issue a deep strike against hardened ADA without the appropriate planning and support from other assets, which quite frequently isn't the case for our game. As noted before, Task Force Normandy would be a real-world example of such an attack (while admitting that EW sites are not in the same realm as ADA, but operational considerations are similar). Beyond 1-112, 3-04.111 references "Conduct limited J-SEAD operations" as part of a ABTF's mission, with the understanding that limited in this case means more restrictions on capabilities like range and speed. For example, a 15 mile hop to knock out a frontline SA-11 site, which would be encompassed in deep operations.

Remember that attack helicopters have several advantages over fast movers when it comes to ADA, so to ignore them and neglect those capabilities under the assumption that certain fixed wing assets do everything better is leaving a lot on the table. If helicopters are in the best position to engage and destroy an ADA site, then they could (and should) be tasked with that. This is unlikely to happen in reality, but various open source documents indicate that planning for such events is definitely a consideration for the commander(s). Older editions of JP 3-01.4 reference this:

Quote

b. Mutual Support. Joint air operations may require support for suppression of enemy air defenses from resources other than aircraft. The joint force commander (JFC) may direct components to support joint air operations with assets, capabilities, or forces, in addition to the air capabilities/forces provided. The measures a commander may request include:
...
• Attack helicopter and air attacks on designated enemy targets, target areas, or targets of opportunity handed off from aircraft participating in a joint air operation.

Air defenses are a factor that inhibits movement of all forms of air power, from helicopters on up. Elimination of them by any means is a critical portion of any planning, defensive or offensive. There can be more ideal methods to suppress or destroy them, but attack helicopters can do so quite well when integrated within the plan. Further, there would be no reason to ignore a critical threat to the helicopters in the conduct of their mission, eg SA-8/15/19 protecting an armored brigade, as these would be prioritized before anything else. Elimination of these threats also allow other airpower assets freedom of motion to engage targets more effectively.

[Raptor9]

I believe the distinction that many are getting hung up on is the difference between "SEAD" as a dedicated mission within the overarching strategic objectives, versus "SEAD" that is integrated as a supporting task of another objective altogether. Degrading air defenses could be as fancy as bombarding it with electrons from EA-6B Prowler or EA-18 Growler aircraft, or it could be as simple as a commando cutting the power grid to the regional air defense command center or a bomb physically blowing up a radar emplacement. But there is a significant difference between attacking air defense systems to simply remove them from the battlespace compared to attacking them as a means to survive long enough to achieve your mission.

AH-64's are not assigned SEAD as a mission unto itself, in that they don't go out hunting for air defenses to sanitize the battlespace. That is delegated to platforms that are actually trained and equipped to perform that mission set, such as F-16's. However, deliberately targeting air defense units at the outset of any engagement is simply a good strategy to ensure that your helicopters survive long enough to achieve the actual objective. This is no different than targeting command and control vehicles before attacking other vehicles around them, or a sniper targeting an officer before engaging the soldiers under their command; it is simply performing proper prioritization of targets as a means to achieve a mission objective.

Having said that, there may be specific aircrews designated within the flight that are tasked with attacking air defense units when such units are encountered; but again, that does not mean they are specifically performing a SEAD mission, it just means they are allocated the task to engage air defense units before hand, so no one is asking "Who's gonna attack this SA-8 that is locked on to us?" in the middle of their RWR going haywire. That is just delegation of duties amongst flight members such as who is performing primary navigation, who in the flight is designated to talk to the ground forces in the area, etc.

The Task Force Normandy example is an outlier and was a surgical strike conducted by a joint helicopter force against strategic targets following months of planning, training, and rehearsals. It just so happened that this strategic target was a pair of radar sites that would blind the Iraqi reaction time long enough to allow coalition aircraft to penetrate far enough into enemy airspace before a sufficient counterattack could be launched. It was a strike against the enemy's command and control capabilities and early warning infrastructure.

At the end of the day, all of this is splitting hairs in an attempt to debate the meaning of "SEAD" as a doctrinal mission set, compared to an implied task that is performed in a tactical situation. But if one is debating whether the AH-64D is an ideal platform for deliberately attacking air defenses, then the answer is no. The AH-64D was designed to destroy armored vehicles from standoff range beyond the weapons employed by tanks, IFV's, and APC's. Mobile air defense units such as the ZSU-23-4, SA-8, SA-15, or 2S6 Tunguska were specifically designed to destroy helicopters and low-flying attack aircraft. Going toe-to-toe with a weapon system that is purpose-built to kill you is silly, much like sending an A-10 or AH-1 with Sidewinder missiles to hunt down MiG-29's. Defending oneself is one thing, to include deliberately planning to defend oneself before even climbing into the cockpit; but that is a far cry from being equipped, trained, and deliberately tasked to go after such units.

[FalcoGer]

7 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

bombarding it with electrons

That's not how it works. EM Radiation, such as radar and radio is an alternation of the electric and magnetic field and the force carriers are photons, not electrons.

7 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

Mobile air defense units such as the ZSU-23-4, SA-8, SA-15, or 2S6 Tunguska were specifically designed to destroy helicopters and low-flying attack aircraft. Going toe-to-toe with a weapon system that is purpose-built to kill you is silly

So what are you going to do if an SA-8 is in the way of your objective, say driving with an armor column? Sit there and wait for an F16 to be shot at by the SA-8, and exposing them to enemy air and LR sam systems, or in the absence of such assets go back home? Or just pop up from behind a hill, shoot a lima and be back down before it can retaliate, and also save a HARM missile for other, more important tasks, like the aforementioned LR sam systems? Also you can outrange shilka at 8km where it can only engage at around 3-4km max. I don't see the issue engaging that. Same with 2S6, it's actually quite short range considering it has missiles. It becomes an issue if you are surprised by them, in which case you didn't plan for them anyway, but the same goes for a BTR-82, which can kill you in 1 or 2 hits with it's gun, and certainly that's a valid target for an AH64, or even a dude with an RPG somewhere in the streets popping around a corner, popping you at 1km with their ridiculous aim. SA-15 and SA-8 can outrange you, but with some proper planning and using terrain features or buildings you can come out on top with relative safety all the time. Only when there is absolutely no way to mask, for example when they're sitting in the middle of a flat desert like east of dubai, I wouldn't go.

Again, I'm not talking about taking on an SA-5 site 80 miles into enemy territory next to an airfield with an SA-10 and SA-8 and SA-15 every 3 miles. I'm talking local ADUs sitting next to tanks or artillery, which is to be expected.

[Raptor9]

@FalcoGer, you are cherry-picking individual statements out of context of the entire post; not to mention treating the "electronic attack" slang term of "bombarding it with electrons" as a literal statement.

You can claim whatever you want, but you missed the overarching point I was explaining; which is from the perspective of spending decades doing the job in real-life, not reading about it on the internet. Frankly, I no longer have any inclination to provide such insights on the forums anymore. I've said what I feel was helpful to clarify the debate. Anyone is free to believe me or not believe me; that is their prerogative. Good day.

[FalcoGer]

4 hours ago, Raptor9 said:

the slang term of "bombarding it with electrons" as a literal statement.

I was not aware this to be a slang term. english is not my primary language and I am not familiar with everything people say on the streets. I thought you were talking about a physical process that takes place during EW.

I also did not mean to offend you, I was posing a question of what you would do in a scenario where your target was protected by a short range air defense system and you were able to engage from relative safety, even if such a system was designed specifically to shoot you down. The problem I think comes from a doctrine that relies on complete air dominance and technological and numerical overmatch over anything the opposing forces can possibly throw at you. There is an SA-8? No problem when you have 120 F-35 in reserve and 2 aircraft carriers groups parked by the shore ready with 200 cruise missiles. That is simply not the case for DCS.

Those scenarios is not what regularly is being placed in DCS missions, where the enemy is often a peer power with modern IADS that the real apache never encountered. A complete overmatch of technology and firepower where you deploy hundreds of aircrafts to basically wipe out 75% of everything the enemy has in 2 hours is neither fun, nor is DCS able to hande such scenarios, even if it were realistic. At the same time calling AI aircraft or artillery is impossible.

I don't have any operational experience like you, nor have I had your training. But what works in DCS works in DCS, so I don't see a reason to say that it doesn't. And even without formal training I have been killed in DCS by an SA-8 once (I was surprised by it), while killing dozens of them with proper cover and tactics, even before the radar guided hellfires were a thing in DCS. Most of my deaths were by manpads in cities or by maneuvering elements with BTR-82, which is more effective than any shilka in DCS, or some dude with an RPG 1km away, which is ludicrous. And that was only before the laser warning receiver.

At the end of the day we're all here to have fun and blow stuff up even if it doesn't conform to some doctrine, and all of that without any real consequences of death. So let's just get along and have fun.

[Raptor9]

@FalcoGer, the posts immediately preceding mine were referencing publicly-available documents describing real-world applications of SEAD with regard to Army Aviation operations. This is what I was referring to as a means of separating the concepts of SEAD as a doctrinal mission set versus SEAD as a supporting task during a mission. It was not in regards to DCS gameplay.

There is no "doctrine" in DCS, just scenarios that are designed and programmed by mission makers. Mission makers can do whatever they want, and players can play however they want, regardless of what real-life doctrine publications state. But that was not what the immediate discussion leading up to my comment was about. The discussion was about what constitutes a realistic employment of the AH-64D as outlined in publicly-available documents.

[NeedzWD40]

Perhaps we should split off this discussion into its own thread? We've kind of gone off tangent from the FCR detection range.

Though on the subject of doctrine, I had the chance to speak with a retired 1 star (former Army Aviation) the other day and I posed the question to him as to whether or not SEAD/DEAD would be assigned to an ATKHB/ARB and his answer was a definitive "yes." So while doctrine does say or indicate the generally accepted roles and duties, it's not a rigid set of rules that a commander will follow all the time, or every time - nor should they, in his words. Though he did say he would rather employ artillery for the least risk to everyone.

[shagrat]

vor 20 Stunden schrieb Raptor9:

 

vor 20 Stunden schrieb Raptor9:

But if one is debating whether the AH-64D is an ideal platform for deliberately attacking air defenses, then the answer is no. The AH-64D was designed to destroy armored vehicles from standoff range beyond the weapons employed by tanks, IFV's, and APC's.

 

Thank you, that's what I am trying to get across for quite a while.

Edited January 1, 2024 by shagrat

[shagrat]

Am 31.12.2023 um 22:59 schrieb NeedzWD40:

As noted before, Task Force Normandy would be a real-world example of such an attack (while admitting that EW sites are not in the same realm as ADA, but operational considerations are similar).

The important difference between an EW-Radar and a SAM battery would be the fact, that one of them shoots actual missiles at aircraft, the other doesn't... A small but significant difference, at least in my book.

[shagrat]

vor 12 Stunden schrieb FalcoGer:

So what are you going to do if an SA-8 is in the way of your objective, say driving with an armor column?

If possible evade and go around. If your target is that specific column, request support by SEAD aircraft. If neither is possible make a decision based on the briefing and contingency planning.

If the fate of the world depends on you killing that one tank in that column, sacrifice yourself for glory! If it's just a normal task to delay enemy advances to prepare for an assault etc. Save the multi-million dollar asset and two highly skilled pilots to fight another day and get the hell outta there.

[NeedzWD40]

7 minutes ago, shagrat said:

The important difference between an EW-Radar and a SAM battery would be the fact, that one of them shoots actual missiles at aircraft, the other doesn't... A small but significant difference, at least in my book.

Sure, but with that comes understanding the capabilities of the threat. For example, various iterations of the SA-6 system have a minimum engagement altitude of 100-200m, which could give an ATKHB an advantage in eliminating the battery, particularly if the battery is unprepared for an attack from helicopters - which was the case for Task Force Normandy's target. An attack by helicopters was not anticipated, and thus relevant defenses were not in place. The same can be true in the real world and we've seen many examples of such being exploited, oftentimes contrary to doctrine. "What resources are available to accomplish the objective with the least amount of risk?" is the question that will be asked. That won't likely be an ATKHB, but it will be considered in the lexicon of available options, with risk vs reward weighed to make a proper decision.

16 minutes ago, shagrat said:

If possible evade and go around. If your target is that specific column, request support by SEAD aircraft. If neither is possible make a decision based on the briefing and contingency planning.

I think the answer here is "it depends." Was the threat anticipated from intel? Does the plan have contingencies for this type of threat (hopefully the planners weren't total dunces)? Who is available to suppress or engage the threat? Will it impact the mission or supporting missions? Is the threat ready and aware or can it be surprised?

These threats can be eliminated in various ways by the ATKHB organically or by supporting fires, as detailed before. For example, a drone (or several) providing terminal laser designation for a AGM-114 launched behind cover, a Copperhead round on call from an artillery battery, or a portion of the ATKHB tasked with their destruction. There are many different ways to address the threat, if the risk is worth it for the situation at hand.

To quote the aforementioned 1 star once again: "How can it be done, not how it can't be done."

[shagrat]

I step out. The Early Warning Radar sites (TF Normandy example) were not only unaware, they were basically incapable of defending themselves against an attack. The Air Defenses of that site were not SAMs... they were AAA with no radar and some APCs etc. 

Comparing apples and oranges doesn't make sense.

As I said we can do as we please in DCS, but just because it can be (easily) done in DCS doesn't make it viable in the real world and thus if one wants a modicum of realistic tasking, it is a good idea to look at the real world. 

[Guest]

Most annoying that you have to get so high to detect targets even if the targets are not blocked by trees or buildings, I believed it was enough to lift the radar dome over the edge to spot the enemy, guess i was wrong. 

[NeedzWD40]

55 minutes ago, Razor68 said:

Most annoying that you have to get so high to detect targets even if the targets are not blocked by trees or buildings, I believed it was enough to lift the radar dome over the edge to spot the enemy, guess i was wrong. 

It's entirely contextual. Sometimes that's enough, sometimes it's not. Move around, scan from a different angle, or if you can see them, engage with TADS. It's not intended to replace your own awareness and judgment, only assist it.

[hawa0835]

Recognise that the FCR can't detect ships.

[Viper ZA]

Is it just me or does FCR range feel far closer that mentioned. It definitely doesn't feel like 8km. When I use FCR the target only appear on the radar when I'm almost upon them. I can literally see them with my eyes. If this is correct, then FCR is a very dangerous mode to use, or am I doing something wrong with the FCR ranging. 

[LorenLuke]

33 minutes ago, Viper ZA said:

Is it just me or does FCR range feel far closer that mentioned. It definitely doesn't feel like 8km. When I use FCR the target only appear on the radar when I'm almost upon them. I can literally see them with my eyes. If this is correct, then FCR is a very dangerous mode to use, or am I doing something wrong with the FCR ranging. 

FCR range only goes out to 8km for moving targets.

Stationary targets show up only within 6km.