Which sim is easier to survive in?

[slug88]

As someone who purchased BS and WH on day one, and who's accumulated hundreds of hours in both, I say it's not even close, the Warthog is more survivable by far. This is due to the following advantages of the WH:

 

Missile Warning System. The Ka-50 LWS is a joke in comparison.

TGP. Hog has IR, nuff said.

Standoff capability. 10ish km for Bs compared to 20+ miles for Hog.

Speed and ceiling. Hog can fly faster and tremendously higher.

General handling. No blade collisions to worry about, nuff said.

[Slap_Chop]

Yep I have to agree slugg. The real answer is the A-10 makes me feel alot safer than the Ka-50 for all the reasons you described. The tanks seem to have better range than the Ka-50 in that sim. Regardless they are both fun to fly for different reasons. You really have to try hard to get shot down by a tank with the A10. SAM's are a different story.

[Wolfie]

After a few hundred hours in DCS, I'd have to say A-10. BS can be like riding a runaway bronco. Sometimes, after hard manuevers, even if you get it supposedly "steady", its like its got stored up energy pulling all kinds of ways for a great while afterwards. I would never ride the Ka-50 IRL. Blades seem to cross for no reason at times and waaayyyyy too easily. Really frustrating. I can see why the Russians canceled it. I would hope the Ka-52 has far greater survivability, but I will never fly in a co-axial aircraft IRL. That would be suicide IMO.

[Pyroflash]

Mentioning the Cobra reminded me of an interesting video I saw:

 

 

It's literally in your face guncam footage from Cobra's in the 2003 Iraq War.

 

Just look at some of the TOW missile guided shots, man that would be fun to try with a Cobra.

 

I wish I could use my Vikhr's from that short of a range while going at such high transverse velocities.

[TurboHog]

After a few hundred hours in DCS, I'd have to say A-10. BS can be like riding a runaway bronco. Sometimes, after hard manuevers, even if you get it supposedly "steady", its like its got stored up energy pulling all kinds of ways for a great while afterwards. I would never ride the Ka-50 IRL. Blades seem to cross for no reason at times and waaayyyyy too easily. Really frustrating. I can see why the Russians canceled it. I would hope the Ka-52 has far greater survivability, but I will never fly in a co-axial aircraft IRL. That would be suicide IMO.

 

The KA50 IS not less surviveable. You THINK is it less surviveable.

 

I THINK the opposite.

 

Your A10C experience > KA50 experience obviously

 

The flight characteristics that you mention depend on the pilot. I can get the KA50 perfectly steady in a second after the most extreme sideslips, funnels, loops etc etc. Blade collisions? I throw the stick all around and my last blade collision was months ago. Just don't overspeed and you can do nearly anything.

 

How can you state that you never want to fly the KA50 in real life? No KA50 pilot ever destroyed his own blades. You can see why the Russians cancelled it??? I beg you pardon? You know nothing, I'm sorry. The bad flight characteristics are the same on the KA52, which is now a production version. 90% of the aiframe design is the same! The problem, according to written internet resources, is the single pilot. Workload in these close combat conditions is too much for one pilot. It's like COD and Battlefield players that try to use their game 'expertise' in comments on youtube video's about real weapons while they actually know nothing about it. Certain weapons are suddenly better than others when a new popular shooter comes out. All the kids know it for sure. I just hate that.

 

Again, the only answer to the question asked in the first post:

 

Depends on the pilot. The only person I would believe is a pilot with KA50 combat experience and A10C combat experience.

 

My apologies if you are a(n) (ex) - KA-50 pilot.

[Wolfie]

Hmm, maybe its my computer then. I can be going along at a decent speed well below the 325 km/hr or so limit, straight and WHAM!, my blades suddenly clash. For no reason I can see! Sometimes, after doing hard manuevers, and then bringing the heli back to straight and level, it feels like something is binding the engines, like the heli never dumped its energy. Blade clash seems more likely at low speeds and manuevers later after these episodes too.

 

I'm beginning to suspect that my computer may be dumping frames when there is hard calculations going on, because it can't keep up. That may be causing the problems. Nice to know someone isn't having problems, so that makes me wonder. I get episodes where it bucks like a wild bronco! And thinking about it now, this happens more after I've been playing a mission for a while, i.e. when the cpu has gotten hotter. I might just need a better computer.

Edited May 12, 2012 by Wolfie

[GGTharos]

The KA50 IS not less surviveable. You THINK is it less surviveable.

 

I THINK the opposite.

 

The A-10C is provably more surviveable.

 

No KA50 pilot ever destroyed his own blades.

 

This is tragically untrue.

 

You can see why the Russians cancelled it???

 

Single pilot attack chopper, not really wanted so much.

[Depth]

I'm beginning to suspect that my computer may be dumping frames when there is hard calculations going on, because it can't keep up. That may be causing the problems. Nice to know someone isn't having problems, so that makes me wonder. I get episodes where it bucks like a wild bronco! And thinking about it now, this happens more after I've been playing a mission for a while, i.e. when the cpu has gotten hotter. I might just need a better computer.

Artifacts like that would likely come from the game engine itself, but an overheating CPU will clock itself down as a failsafe. May very well be your root cause.

 

Try HWMonitor to see what the max temperature is when playing

[TurboHog]

The A-10C is provably more surviveable.

 

 

 

This is tragically untrue.

 

 

 

Single pilot attack chopper, not really wanted so much.

 

Prove it and mention your sources.

 

I stand corrected on the blades. Its not common however and the ka52 shares this property. Thus, is no reason for cancellation.

 

I explained the single pilot problem already. Read my post and the one I reply to more carefully, please.

[Bushmanni]

Not getting shot down is mostly dependent on pilot experience ie. his ability to avoid getting shot at. So the question is which platform gives the best chance for the pilot to complete the mission while detecting and avoiding threats so as to not give them good shot opportunities. While A-10C has TGP, RWR, MWS and LWR and Ka-50 has only Shkval and LWR the Ka-50's ability to hover, advance slowly and use terrain for his advantage is great advantage the A-10 lacks. On the other hand A-10 can fly above short range SAM systems WEZ and pound the enemy with impunity. It all depends on the situation but for some missions the Ka-50 would be more survivable because of it's ability to sneak around. But in overall I think A-10 is more survivable in most missions and it's easier to learn to survive in but it's wrong to think the Ka-50 has no place at all.

[GGTharos]

Prove it and mention your sources.

 

It's pretty easy: You yourself mentioned the workload, re: single pilot. To add to this, you have no RWR, no link with other aircraft than your flight or ground forces.

 

By comparison, the A-10C has a good RWR, an MLWS, datalink capability between itself and ground, itself and other SADL equipped aircraft (some of these features, like ability to link SAM sites are not modeled in DCS), the ability to have weapons designated by outside sources, and the ability to stand-off quite a bit - and you have that pod, too.

 

Superior SA alone already makes it more surviveable. The ability to fly higher and faster adds a lot, and stand-off weapons add even more.

 

And then there's the jammer (not modeled well in ANY sim).

 

I stand corrected on the blades. Its not common however and the ka52 shares this property. Thus, is no reason for cancellation.

 

Quite right.

 

I explained the single pilot problem already. Read my post and the one I reply to more carefully, please.

 

I did, just reinforcing your point.

[TurboHog]

It's pretty easy: You yourself mentioned the workload, re: single pilot. To add to this, you have no RWR, no link with other aircraft than your flight or ground forces.

 

By comparison, the A-10C has a good RWR, an MLWS, datalink capability between itself and ground, itself and other SADL equipped aircraft (some of these features, like ability to link SAM sites are not modeled in DCS), the ability to have weapons designated by outside sources, and the ability to stand-off quite a bit - and you have that pod, too.

 

Superior SA alone already makes it more surviveable. The ability to fly higher and faster adds a lot, and stand-off weapons add even more.

 

And then there's the jammer (not modeled well in ANY sim).

 

I was expecting that...

 

You cannot formally prove it. Comparing systems is no proof especially in this case. The KA50 is a helicopter and the A10C is fixed wing, if you haven't already noticed. Comparing systems from a helicopter and a fixed wing and thinking that it proves a certain difference in combat efficiency/surviveability is, I'm sorry to say, simplistic. The KA50 (special forces support helicopter), takes no advantage from datalink systems that cover all friendly flights or ground units. Just to name something.

 

To prove your conviction that the A10C is more surviveable you will need the following:

 

Percentage of KA50's shot down in combat

Percentage of A10C's shot down in combat

 

KA50 - 0 as far as I know. It has seen little action and the action it did see was against a bunch of armed rebels. No reliable or compareable data unfortunately.

 

A10's have been shot down (I don't know a number). These were mostly A versions.

 

Yet we can't say anything about surviveability, since dividing the number of operational KA50's by 0 is not possible.

 

Thus, you can not prove that the KA50 is less surviveable for what it does. And you can not prove that A10C is more surviveable for what it does.

Edited May 12, 2012 by TurboHog

[luza]

I think the OP simply meant which one was easiest to survive in DCS enviroment. Which I will have to agree the A10 having an RWR and TGP gives u better SA imo.

[TurboHog]

I think the OP simply meant which one was easiest to survive in DCS enviroment. Which I will have to agree the A10 having an RWR and TGP gives u better SA imo.

 

SA can be great in both machines. And in the KA50: what do you need the RWR for if you're below radar altitude most of the time?

 

Some guys from or related to STP met a real KA50 pilot playing BS1. They told me that he was so extremely quick. All targets were dead before normal players could even spot them.

 

The easiest to survive (KA50/A10C) is just someone's opinion. No one can disagree with that or?

 

Eyesight and the ability to overwatch an area from one angle (orientation bonus) over a longer period of time make surviving easy for me in the average mission (I pick out threats easily). For most others here: TGP and RWR, and other systems that make no sense to compare to helicopter systems, make the A10C easier to survive.

Edited May 12, 2012 by TurboHog

[sobek]

SA can be great in both machines. And in the KA50: what do you need the RWR for if you're below radar altitude most of the time?

 

Of a SHORAD? Good luck at that.

[luza]

SA can be great in both machines. And in the KA50: what do you need the RWR for if you're below radar altitude most of the time?

 

Some guys from or related to STP met a real KA50 pilot playing BS1. They told me that he was so extremely quick. All targets were dead before normal players could even spot them.

 

The easiest to survive (KA50/A10C) is just someone's opinion. No one can disagree with that or?

 

Eyesight and the ability to overwatch an area from one angle (orientation bonus) over a longer period of time make surviving easy for me in the average mission (I pick out threats easily). For most others here: TGP and RWR, and other systems that make no sense to compare to helicopter systems, make the A10C easier to survive.

 

ofc it all comes down to the pilot. But the A10s System allow you to stand off with more ease imo... It's easier to avoid danger when you know you're in danger ;)

[TurboHog]

Of a SHORAD? Good luck at that.

 

My eyes have built-in missile warnings... :lol: Ok not as reliable. But the idea is that you advance slowly while knowing from what direction enemies can attack you.

 

It takes long, but I have been able to do a mission, made by Grunt, with many units including sa18 and sa9 spread out over a large area. Slow advance, patience, creating datalinks and visualizing the area in your head and ABRIS are all key to your succes. I killed about 18 units in three hours and two sorties in an area of about 30 x 30km and returned safely after each sortie. That was the first time I have ever flown that mission (and it was the greatest and most difficult mission I've ever flown). I was never fired at by a SAM unit throughout the mission. If I get shot down I review the situation in a track or tacview and learn from it. Usually when I get shot down these days I already know what I did wrong while ejecting (too fast advance, didn't check the area well enough before flying into it, ignored the laser warning, flying too high, wrong evasive manoeuvring, Didn't look out of the window, exposed myself from too many units at once etc etc)

 

So yes, an area with SHORADs. It is possible, but difficult.

 

If patience is difficult then yes, staying alive in the KA50 is more difficult than in the A10C.

 

I don't know who's right or wrong in this discussion about surviveability. In the end I think no one is. With no real world facts I think everytime someone sais 'The (...) is more surviveable than the (...)', you should read 'The (...) is, in my humble opinion, more surviveable than the (...)'

 

 

ofc it all comes down to the pilot. But the A10s System allow you to stand off with more ease imo... It's easier to avoid danger when you know you're in danger ;)

 

Agree, they do. The KA50 has different kind of spotting advantages like searching an area for a longer time from the same psoition, which aids orientation. The latter requires a closer range to target which is more dangerous. Then again, if you stay low you don't have to worry about Radar SAM units

Edited May 12, 2012 by TurboHog

[GGTharos]

I was expecting that...

 

You cannot formally prove it. Comparing systems is no proof especially in this case. The KA50 is a helicopter and the A10C is fixed wing, if you haven't already noticed. Comparing systems from a helicopter and a fixed wing and thinking that it proves a certain difference in combat efficiency/surviveability is, I'm sorry to say, simplistic. The KA50 (special forces support helicopter), takes no advantage from datalink systems that cover all friendly flights or ground units. Just to name something.

 

Ask a trained pilot if that isn't enough proof. They'll tell you the same thing: The A-10C is more surviveable. You can make up any special scenario you want, etc etc etc, but the A-10C will come out on top.

SA is the 'money' a pilot spends to survive, and a pilot in the A-10C has scores more than a pilot in the Ka-50. It may be simplistic, but that really is 'all there is to it'. You can get bogged down in details all you like, but in the end SA=Win in the vast majority of situations.

 

To prove your conviction that the A10C is more surviveable you will need the following:

 

Percentage of KA50's shot down in combat

Percentage of A10C's shot down in combat

 

Actually I do not. All I need is to query combat pilot experience. They do train on based on what they understand of air combat, and they do request the gadgets that make them better at it. Now, if your budget doesn't cover them ...

 

KA50 - 0 as far as I know. It has seen little action and the action it did see was against a bunch of armed rebels. No reliable or compareable data unfortunately.

 

A10's have been shot down (I don't know a number). These were mostly A versions.

 

Yet we can't say anything about surviveability, since dividing the number of operational KA50's by 0 is not possible.

 

Thus, you can not prove that the KA50 is less surviveable for what it does. And you can not prove that A10C is more surviveable for what it does.

 

I can tell you that in the same combat environment, it is likely that no Ka-50's would have been left serviceable, had they been allowed to fly in their current configuration ;)

[GGTharos]

I don't know who's right or wrong in this discussion about surviveability. In the end I think no one is. With no real world facts I think everytime someone sais 'The (...) is more surviveable than the (...)', you should read 'The (...) is, in my humble opinion, more surviveable than the (...)'

 

But I do. Do you think that what you flew is realistic? There has been an Apache squadron vs. an IADS company exercise in RL, and the Apaches didn't actually do so hot ... they're a /lot/ more advanced than the simulated Ka-50 you're in. The pilots are also very well trained.

 

I wonder if it had to do with a thinking, mobile opponent?

[outaluck1]

A-10 has much easier avionics to fly in my opinion. After you learn how.

[TurboHog]

How can you regard that as proof? Are you a teacher in real life? They can't give in. It's against their nature. I mean: you have to agree that there is no formal proof, just speculation. And especially when we are comparing two different kind of machines, how can we ever be sure that one is better than the other. You can't. You consider the Black Shark the exact same thing as an A10C. If that is the case, you are right.

 

A real A10C vs a real KA50 is a non-existing, non-relevant point of discussion. The only way to compare them is by looking at combat efficiency and surviveability in their own (entirely different) roles.

 

What is the surviveability of a single infantry man trying to act like a tank in the midst of a tank battle? It's not particulary great. Now, is the infantry man ineffective? According to you: yes. In a CQB street fight the highly mobile infantry is highly effective.

 

Now, this question is about in-game surviveability.

 

None of us, even the best that never get shot down, are nearly as good as a real pilot. Again, because of the great difference in skill levels, you can't sate that KA50 is more surviveable than the A10C and vica versa.

 

For us here, it depends on the pilot (player is a better word here).

For real world. Apples and pears.

 

A neutral conclusion and a good one. Dont you agree?

Edited May 13, 2012 by TurboHog

[GGTharos]

I mean: you have to agree that there is no formal proof, just speculation.

 

Actually I don't have to agree. :)

 

A real A10C vs a real KA50 is a non-existing, non-relevant point of discussion. The only way to compare them is by looking at combat efficiency and surviveability in their own (entirely different) roles.

That is how you wish it was. In reality, the Ka-50 is relegated to a particular role instead of the front lines because it is not very survivable in the modern battlefield. An A-10C doing the same job as a Ka-50 won't be in trouble.

 

Now, this question is about in-game surviveability.

Game-isms are game-isms. :)

 

A neutral conclusion and a good one. Dont you agree?

Actually no, I don't. I'm not interested in comparing pilots ('it depends on the pilot'), I'm interested in comparing machines, so I assume a well experinced/trailed virtual pilot in either machine, in an MP setting ... on a server that doesn't have rules stating that fighters must leave the A2G area alone. ;)

[TurboHog]

Discussion is endless.

 

When it comes down to easier (to learn) to survive:

 

You can learn staying alive in the A10C faster.

But in the end a well trained KA50 pilot will find more ways to reduce the chance of getting shot down in the KA50. In DCS

 

About the proof thingie:

 

criteria for proofhood are ironclad and it is impermissible to defend any step in the reasoning as "obvious"

A. S. Troelstra, H. Schwichtenberg (1996). Basic Proof Theory. In series Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Cambridge University Press

[GGTharos]

Try decades of air force experience :)

 

About the proof thingie:

 

criteria for proofhood are ironclad and it is impermissible to defend any step in the reasoning as "obvious"

A. S. Troelstra, H. Schwichtenberg (1996). Basic Proof Theory. In series Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science, Cambridge University Press

[EtherealN]

SA can be great in both machines. And in the KA50: what do you need the RWR for if you're below radar altitude most of the time?

 

Assuming there are hostile airborne assets, there is no such thing as "below" the radar for a Ka-50. Even if you're sitting stationary on the ground, as soon as you start spinning the rotors you'll light up every airborne radar in the region that doesn't have a mountain between it and you. (Crossreference the F-15E A2A-kill with a bomb... It detected the Mi-8 as it was spooling up on the ground, then slaved the bomb guidance to the A2A radar and dropped the weapon, impacting right after the helicopter took off.)

 

...and remember, you won't know about a weapon having been launched at you until impact. An F-15 could nail you at it's leisure from 20+ miles away. Way further depending on altitudes and platform speeds. And the Ka-50 won't know anything is incoming, it won't even know that it has been detected, ranged, locked and tracked... This is a pretty serious problem as far as "surviving" on the modern battlefield goes, I hope you'll agree?

 

For the A-10C however, we've got not only detection of enemy radar emitters, we also have classification and identification of them, we have warnings when said emitters tracking and/or guiding weapons towards you, you have a jammer to help you defeat these threats, and you even have systems that will warn you if a passive weapon is launched at you. There's even systems that automatically select appropriate countermeasures for the specific threat it is reacting to.

 

Add to this the fact that as an A-10C pilot, you have the ability to defeat hostile tracking of you through the notch. This is of course not an "advantage" in the game, but that's a game-isms. (In the simulator, the helicopter will notch when slower than 130km/h. This is not realistic. Those two rotor discs should light things up more than the 4th of July :P It is a concession to multiplayer playability/balance.)

 

Now perhaps you'll say "but it wouldn't operate in conditions where there are enemy F-15's"? Well, in that case, I'll just say "the A-10C wouldn't operate in conditions where there are enemy Flankers", in which case the A-10C simply doesn't get shot at because it's up there at angels 25 happily dropping 97's and 105's for great justice. :)

 

Several of these problems apply equally to most helicopters, obviously, but since we're comparing Ka-50 with A-10C and not Ka-50 with AH-64A... :)