Right tool for the job?

[dooom]

So with the pending launch of FC 2.0 and the subsequent MP missions we are all looking forward to between the Lockon / DCS BS airframes... I ask this.

 

Black Shark vs. Su25 / Su25t... which is the best tool for the job for mission designers? What does our beloved little whirlybird offer that a hotstick SU pilot could not achieve?

 

How could they work together?

[GGTharos]

Very close air support and effective target ... sniping, for lack of a better word. Su-25 will probably not be as effective at that.

[dooom]

So do you see missions utilizing the bs as an anti aaa platform? I.e seek and destroy surface to air threats for fixed wing?

[GGTharos]

No, I would really think of it like that. You could do that, but that's a bit of a fake role that would only really work if the enemy AA was poor. If you have a good SAM/AAA network, the heli is toast, IMHO.

 

But if it's just a couple of AAA sites then yes, I think the heli might be better at taking them out to enable the Su to come lower. Also I think the heli would work well as a spotter and AFAC, but the opposite can also easily be true.

 

As long as people 'play fair' and don't try to enhance the ability to visually acquire a target like a MANPADS guy that is ... you wouldn't see them in RL, so trying to spot'em with er, 'enhancements' is definitely cheating yourself out of a realistic experience IMHO, no matter how much you might hate being the subject of their prodding. (... plan your entry into enemy airspace instead, including pre-emptive countermeasure use). Anyway, I'm starting to get long-winded.

 

Bottom line, there's plenty of scenarios you can use. A Ka-50 is better at supporting your troops vs. enemy troops in close quarters for example, I'd argue.

Edited March 18, 2010 by GGTharos

[Garfieldo]

IMO the main differences are payload and speed: The 25T can move very fast (and high) and deliver a massive payload, whereas the 50 can remain stationary with a reduced weapons loadout.

So the 25 never spends a lot of time in the AO (depending on its size, of course), whereas the 50 lingers on the battlefield (which raises the SAM/AAA threat) and has much more time to observe, thus making its strikes a little more precise.

 

Personally I fear that in a Black Shark / Su-25T coop mission the Su-pilot will spend most of his time circling the AO waiting for the 50 ;)

[ARM505]

I was just about to ask about buddy lasing - then I remembered the rather painfully useless (at buddy lasing) guidance system of the Vikhr.....but, can a helo lase for the Su's Kh25/other laser guided weapons?

[Total]

The CAS role of a helo is alot different than that of a fixed wing. Heli's can get in tight spots and directly support the ground troops in a way that fixed wings cannot.

 

On the flip side - for fast response and blow the snot out of high threat targets, the fixed wing is a prime platform.

 

If built correctly, the missions can incorporate rotor-wing platforms and fixed wing platforms seamlessly. MP missions will definitely show which mission designers are stragetically minded.

[dooom]

Please don't be afraid of being long winded GGTharos... I think this is a really important discussion and hence I appeal to the experienced few of our bunch.

 

What I am really trying to aquire is a sense of utility for the different airframes. With the launch of FC2, I am looking forward to a "realistic" MP mission. It is where exactly the two ground attack roles will overlap that i think is important for ourselves and the mission builders to understand.

 

So if I understand you, in a multi-asset engagement:

Su27/33 vs F15 in CAP role.

Su25/25T with A-10 CAS role.

Ka-50/Apache close quarters support.

 

Su25/A10 will be tasked with breaking through CAP cover of fighters to AO.

If they succeed, they will rely upon Ka-50 intel/radar regarding SAM threat location and use speed/payload to mitigate AAA threat to allow for deeper Ka-50 penetration.

 

Does that sound about right in terms of how these would likely be used?

[sinelnic]

I would send the Su's for static more strategic targets, even in a CAS scenario, such as artillery, bridges, FARPS, known SAM and AAA positions and command posts. I would leave the emergent/mobile threats to the Ka's, such as armored columns, sieged towns occupied by enemies, and act as "forward eyes" for emergent/unknown threats that may be better suited for a Su run such as a newly deployed SAM site. I would also have the Su's provide AA capabilities against enemy helicopters.

 

Also I would send the Ka to positions closer to our front-lines, and only deeper if and when the Su's have cleared the path for them.

Edited March 18, 2010 by sinelnic

[GGTharos]

Su27/33 vs F15 in CAP role.

 

Su-33's should be left out altogether if you want realism. Their role is to defend the fleet from anti-submarine and ant-ship assets, not to chase after F-15's. Their most likely encounter with an Air to Air fighter would be vs. an F-14 or F-18.

 

If they succeed, they will rely upon Ka-50 intel/radar regarding SAM threat location and use speed/payload to mitigate AAA threat to allow for deeper Ka-50 penetration.

 

Both the A-10 and Su-25 are infinitly better suited at 'getting intel' on radar SAMs than a Ka-50 ever will be. They have an RWR, the Ka-50 has nothing. The Ka-50's job is NOT SEAD. Maybe DEAD after air defenses are detected, but they are not the scouts for this.

 

Due to issues with A2G payloads being far easier and more convenient to use than they should be on the flankers and MiG's, I would advise against tasking those with A2G of any sort whatsoever, and leaving that job to the dedicated ground-pounders instead.

[JimMack]

In COIN operations, such as Afghanistan, helos (such as Apache) are most feared by the Taliban.

Advantage - more accurate than fixed wing, even A-10C

Disadvantage - Helos need to be close to target area when called for, due to slower speed than fixed wing.

[sinelnic]

Su-33's should be left out altogether if you want realism. Their role is to defend the fleet from anti-submarine and ant-ship assets, not to chase after F-15's. Their most likely encounter with an Air to Air fighter would be vs. an F-14 or F-18.

 

Now that you mention it... is the DCS/Lock-on scenario big enough to allow any realistic naval combat involving carriers? or it would be like having the USS Enterprise in my bathtub?

[EtherealN]

Another disadvantage would be greater vulnerability to unguided munitions like RPGs, though I haven't checked how big an issue this actually is for the pilots serving in Afghanistan.

[GGTharos]

I would say you'd pretty much have to stick'em at opposing ends of the map. You could do it, but the ranges wouldn't exceed 200nm between them by much I think - I could be wrong...you might get 400-500nm if you do things right.

 

But the other thing is, I don't really know enough about how a naval battle would look like. While aircraft can deliver ASMs from afar, ships need to get considerably closer.

 

Now that you mention it... is the DCS/Lock-on scenario big enough to allow any realistic naval combat involving carriers? or it would be like having the USS Enterprise in my bathtub?

[sinelnic]

I would be really interested in real-life cases of combat helis brought down by RPGs or small-arms fire, I would assume that can happen either in a guerrilla scenario with no front-lines (i.e. an ambush near your FARP) or when using the heli incorrectly (i.e. hovering when and where you shouldn't).

[sinelnic]

I would say you'd pretty much have to stick'em at opposing ends of the map. You could do it, but the ranges wouldn't exceed 200nm between them by much I think - I could be wrong...you might get 400-500nm if you do things right.

 

But the other thing is, I don't really know enough about how a naval battle would look like. While aircraft can deliver ASMs from afar, ships need to get considerably closer.

 

Just found that the Falklands were fought in a radius approximately similar to 400 Nm AFAIK (I'm no expert)... and they involved carriers, so we might get something nice in the DCS scenario! on the downside, the aircraft that fought that war were "a little" less sophisticated than what you can find in the DCS arsenal, so maybe an actual battle in DCS needs more space to allow for the extended range of the A/Cs and missiles involved.

 

Also the argentinian carrier was grounded as soon as the "Belgrano" (Destroyer) was sunk, fearing it would be very vulnerable to surface attacks, suggesting aircraft are not very trusted to really defend the fleet in an all-out surface attack. On the other hand, the argentinian arsenal consisted of 4 Exocet missiles, so maybe our DCS scenario is a little different in that regard.

[Bushmanni]

Is there actually any missions for BS where player(s) would need to provide extremely close air support for ground forces? I don't remember seeing any long battles between ground forces. The few battles are over before you get to do much because the troops just push to the enemy and either die or kill the enemy. I'd love to see the kind of intimate support missions where attack choppers excel. Usually it's a bit funny to do missions that would be better handled with CAS aircraft or artillery like destroying hordes of enemy tanks rolling on a field or soft stationary targets out in the open.