Avoidance Tactics against enemy A10s

[Daniel M]

To just say a word about the OP question....

Appreciated Accipiter. Part of me is with you, wishes we had something to defend ourselves. But I also understand why it's not being added; if you add this, what about other "possible" weapons. How do you draw the line? IMHO fixing the f5 "cheat"* would be enough for me to think that it wouldn't be as much of an issue. If that's fixed, and a pilot happens to stumble upon me, or actively searches and finds me, then kudos to them they deserve the kill.

 

<hypothetical section and will probably pull this thread completely off topic>

With the announcement of the "dcs core" in the april newsletter:

What if ED starts adding these "100% not accurate to the model they, pardon my austin powers reference, modeled as chargeable mods. My initial reaction is "no", but at the same time would it be so bad to have AA on the ka50? Could Ed then have a "new" revenue stream, of creating almost 100% accurate aircraft and handling. I know they can't breach security and information to a certain extent, but what about creating their own "version" of say the ka-50sh. Again, I don't know what is top secret that they are not allowed to add, but they then could add in their own "device" that "improves night attack".

 

It then jumps to, why stop there? Now they could start creating all aircraft without "needing" security clearance.

 

Then it jumps to, who determines what numbers are "realistic"..and goes on in infinite.

 

So while I would love to have AA, and would love to see ED have more and more profit (they are one of a few that I greatly appreciate have not "consolized" their efforts.) the purest in me isn't quite sure if I would like the end result. But I would love an AH1z :joystick:, as I'm sure others would want <insert aircraft that wouldn't be declassified enough to develop for 25 years>.

 

</end hypothetical section>

*not implying/nor "dis"-implying that the pilot that shot me down in the above screens used/didn't use f5

Edited April 11, 2012 by Daniel M
there their

[GGTharos]

Don't worry, those AA-8's would only make you feel warm and fuzzy ... you'd get shot down just the same anyway.

 

And that's why the Ka-50 doesn't carry them.

 

I don't think ED is interested in creating aircraft with fictional capabilities.

[Speed]

Don't worry, those AA-8's would only make you feel warm and fuzzy ... you'd get shot down just the same anyway.

 

And that's why the Ka-50 doesn't carry them.

 

I don't think ED is interested in creating aircraft with fictional capabilities.

 

I thought the reason the Ka-50 doesn't carry them is because further Ka-50 development was aborted prior to the AAM capability being fully added? I mean, that at least makes sense. Once Russia decided they really only were going to buy a one or two dozen Ka-50s, the logic behind not continuing with further development seems pretty sound. And no one else has wanted to buy any Ka-50s either, so why would Kamov finish integrating a capability that is useless in most modern conflicts?

 

IRL, I believe there is a discussion to arm helos with AAMs not just for defense against fighters, but against UAVs as well. The Predator drone can carry Stingers, and actually fired one in combat against an Iraqi fighter before the 2003 invasion (it didn't help the Predator much, the Iraqi fighter still shot it down).

 

Anyway, do you know if they have or are going to add or have already added AAMs to the Ka-52? Russia seems serious about Ka-52 development, at least.

Edited April 11, 2012 by Speed

[159th_Viper]

Don't worry, those AA-8's would only make you feel warm and fuzzy ... you'd get shot down just the same anyway.

 

Exactly the reason why I'd happily settle for the NII Ekran L370 Vitebsk :)

 

xfxHWWqsRQI

[GGTharos]

I thought the reason the Ka-50 doesn't carry them is because further Ka-50 development was aborted prior to the AAM capability being fully added? I mean, that at least makes sense.

 

Operational use makes sense.

 

Once Russia decided they really only were going to buy a one or two dozen Ka-50s, the logic behind not continuing with further development seems pretty sound. And no one else has wanted to buy any Ka-50s either, so why would Kamov finish integrating a mostly useless capability?

 

Because it is useless. If they had a valid use for it -and- funds, it would have probably gone in.

 

IRL, I believe there is a discussion to arm helos with AAMs not just for defense against fighters, but against UAVs as well. The Predator drone can carry Stingers, and actually fired one in combat against an Iraqi fighter before the 2003 invasion (it didn't help the Predator much, the Iraqi fighter still shot it down).

 

There a bunch of helis today that are capable of carrying some sort of AAM. Of specific note is the USMC Cobra, who's mission actually includes some anti-air capability.

Others are armed perhaps as precaution against meeting other helicopters or other slow-movers, but by and large they're not really expected nor even desired to engage in any sort of air to air combat. Once you launch that AAM it will give you away - helis prefer to evade and complete their primary mission instead.

For this reason, the Apache, even though it has had AIM-9's and Stingers tested on it, does not have the capability to use them operationally. Other countries opted to have the capability available, but their circumstances might be quite different (which air force can afford to keep a strictly air to air component? Right).

 

Anyway, do you know if they have or are going to add or have already added AAMs to the Ka-52? Russia seems serious about Ka-52 development, at least.

 

It is a modern aircraft so I don't see why not - it has been strongly indicated that it can carry iglas. Whether they use them in practice or not is another matter.

 

(For example, technically you could drop Mk-83's from an A-10, but they're not certified on it. It isn't available, and it isn't used, but there's probably nothing preventing anyone from strapping an 83 to an A-10 and using it. Regardless, it just isn't used, being a USN weapon, and so you don't get to use it in the sim).

[Daniel M]

Exactly the reason why I'd happily settle for the NII Ekran L370 Vitebsk :)

as I'm sure others would want <insert aircraft or systems that wouldn't be declassified enough to develop for 25 years>.

 

 

 

fixed :D

 

I guess that's always the hot topic. People know these classified systems exist. Does the military tell ED "you can't model this system at all" or "you can model this system but don't use the real world performance statistics"? I'm sure its shades of grey depending on the system/aircraft in question...

 

Playing devils advocate...

Does using these "adjusted" systems then make them fictional? How do we know the modeled 50 in game isn't adjusted for "public consumption" :book: I"m sure some people would argue that everything in game is adjusted because its "simulating" and hence not 100% real life match

 

But see we're already getting into "who determines what is acceptable realism". I guess that answer is/will always be ED

Edited April 11, 2012 by Daniel M
quote order backwards

[GGTharos]

Playing devils advocate...

Does using these "adjusted" systems then make them fictional? How do we know the modeled 50 in game isn't adjusted for "public consumption" :book: I"m sure some people would argue that everything in game is adjusted because its "simulating" and hence not 100% real life match

 

So what if it is? It doesn't make it fictional, whereas adding a fictional capability does.

 

But see we're already getting into "who determines what is acceptable realism". I guess that answer is/will always be ED

 

Exactly.

[Speed]

Operational use makes sense.

 

 

Right, but also, the Ka-50's operational use was curtailed because it is under-funded. Instead of a main, front-line, anti-armor attack helo, Russia uses it to support special ops. Do you have any doubt that the Ka-50 would have had its AAM capability fully completed, had it been chosen over the Mi-28 as Russia's new attack helo? Or at least, they would be planning for it?

 

But then again, perhaps the design of the Ka-50 would prevent even that from happening. Where would you put the AAMs?

 

There a bunch of helis today that are capable of carrying some sort of AAM. Of specific note is the USMC Cobra, who's mission actually includes some anti-air capability.

Others are armed perhaps as precaution against meeting other helicopters or other slow-movers, but by and large they're not really expected nor even desired to engage in any sort of air to air combat. Once you launch that AAM it will give you away - helis prefer to evade and complete their primary mission instead.

For this reason, the Apache, even though it has had AIM-9's and Stingers tested on it, does not have the capability to use them operationally. Other co

Edited April 12, 2012 by Speed

[GGTharos]

Right, but also, the Ka-50's operational use was curtailed because it is under-funded. Instead of a main, front-line, anti-armor attack helo, Russia uses it to support special ops. Do you have any doubt that the Ka-50 would have had its AAM capability fully completed, had it been chosen over the Mi-28 as Russia's new attack helo? Or at least, they would be planning for it?

 

 

Like I said, AAMs on helis are not a new concept - some helis are built to equip them, most are not.

 

Had someone bought Ka-50s and paid Kamov to integrate AAMs, they'd have Ka-50's with AAMs, but that's if someone had bought them as such.

What could have been = fantasyland.

I'm not interested in what could have been, I'm more interested in what is.

[Nobody96]

I think there is no way that you can compensate for your energy disadvantage by using missiles. Even with a 6+ rack of AMRAMMs on each pylon and a radar you would still be low and slow, something I often called called dead back in my RoF days. Therefore my advice is to use this air to air disadvantage to your benefit and make yourself invisible until your fellow Mig jockey has cleared the skies or at least shifted the A-10 pilots attention.

 

so long

Mathias

[Speed]

GG, this was along the lines of what I originally tried to say, but my F@#$#$## router somehow managed to send less than half the post.

 

Operational use makes sense.

Right, but also, the Ka-50's operational use was curtailed because it is under-funded. Instead of a main, front-line, anti-armor attack helo, Russia uses it to support special ops. Do you have any doubt that the Ka-50 would have had its AAM capability fully completed, had it been chosen over the Mi-28 as Russia's new attack helo? Or at least, they would be planning for it?

 

But then again, perhaps the design of the Ka-50 would prevent even that from happening. Where would you put the AAMs?

 

There a bunch of helis today that are capable of carrying some sort of AAM. Of specific note is the USMC Cobra, who's mission actually includes some anti-air capability.

Others are armed perhaps as precaution against meeting other helicopters or other slow-movers, but by and large they're not really expected nor even desired to engage in any sort of air to air combat. Once you launch that AAM it will give you away - helis prefer to evade and complete their primary mission instead.

For this reason, the Apache, even though it has had AIM-9's and Stingers tested on it, does not have the capability to use them operationally. Other countries opted to have the capability available, but their circumstances might be quite different (which air force can afford to keep a strictly air to air component? Right).

Just the fact that a helo might be carrying an AAM could force opponents to treat it with more respect. It doesn't even have to fire an AAM for it to potentially be effective. Aerial opponents might be more reluctant to engage a helo if they think it could be carrying AAMs. Maybe not a fighter armed with ARH or SARH missiles, but certainly something like an A-10 or a Su-25 is going to be forced to respect the helo threat much more if they could be carrying AAMs. So just the idea that a helo might be carrying an AAM helps to make an environment that is more conducive to the helo's survival.

 

(For example, technically you could drop Mk-83's from an A-10, but they're not certified on it. It isn't available, and it isn't used, but there's probably nothing preventing anyone from strapping an 83 to an A-10 and using it. Regardless, it just isn't used, being a USN weapon, and so you don't get to use it in the sim).

Wouldn't a more valid comparison be something like the B61 and the F-16? The F-16 was tested and is configured to release it, but it never carries it, for obvious reasons. Should the need arise though, it can be loaded. Same goes for AAMs on attack helos where the helo has been tested and configured to fire them. No need to load them up, until there IS a need to load them up. Just because a weapon isn't used operationally today because it's unnecessary for current conflicts is not a good excuse to ignore modeling that weapon in a simulation. IMO, better excuses would be something like, "helicopter AI is currently incapable of using AAMs", or even "we just haven't gotten to it yet, have patience".

 

Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the Ka-50. I'm talking about attack helos that we know for sure have been configured to carry AAMs and could carry them operationally should the need arise. Currently, in DCS, that's what- the AH-1W? Mi-28? (or did they never complete installation/testing of Igla capability for the Mi-28?)

Edited April 12, 2012 by Speed

[159th_Viper]

fixed :D

 

I guess that's always the hot topic. People know these classified systems exist. Does the military tell ED "you can't model this system at all" or "you can model this system but don't use the real world performance statistics"? I'm sure its shades of grey depending on the system/aircraft in question...

 

It's there for the A-10C ;)

 

In any event, as with a lot of systems, it's not how it's made that counts, it's what it does. Whilst the former is probably classified, the latter is not. In the absence of a proactive method of defence, which capability the Kamov might or might not have (we'll never know debating it with the Internet as a medium), settling for a reactive method of defence should be mandatory, and is, hence the integration of the system on Russian Helo's, the Kamov being one. Goodness knows the Kamov is a sitting duck at present - needs all the help it can get :D

[choco8]

I dont know on the game but....

 

For real,

 

If you want to avoid being spotted for real it is NOE, low level and tactical flying. Cover to cover. Only fire when you can hit the priority target and unless you are fired at don't fire your flares it tells them where you are!

 

Tactical flying think backdrop, is your hover kicking up dust, shoot and scoot. If they are searching for you on IR well you are screwed.

 

If you get spotted...

turn into your attacker, you'll never out run him/her (he is a plank wing loser :P), combine your speed with theirs for a head on and jink. They should lose you in the turn unless they have a padlock feature which is a great help.

 

Best bet if their are mud movers about is get into a friendly GBAD area and get the A10 smashed by your own air defence...fighters or SAMs.

Firing on them is a nice idea to put them off but I would suggest your chances are somewhat slim...but never say never.

 

However this is real world stuff.

 

I have just bought a new laptop to play ka50 so hopefully I'll see some of you online in a few days.