Which sim is easier to survive in?

[TurboHog]

...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?

 

nWell I would love to agree as this discussion is approaching a pointless/endless level.

 

But the laser warning receiver? Muzzle flash awareness? Tracers? 8/10 times I know that something has been fired at me or could have been fired at me. I'm never static like most players, I always fly forward or I'm sideslipping along the frontline. Wire guided ATGM's never hit me. Laser guided ATGM's dont get a chance as I start moving fast with the attacker at 3 or 9 o'clock. I detect an IR SAM launch maybe 3/10 times, but I do everything to prevent a launch in the first place by taking my time to check out and clear an area.

 

There is no such thing as below radar altitude? Ok maybe you're right. But below tracking radar altitude exists then... The radar SAM's do not fire at me when below 20m and are inaccurate up to 50m. Is that not the case in real world? I don't know, so you tell me... But remember this discussion was about surviveability in DCS originally.

 

When you fly KA50 you are the senseless stereotype beginning KA50 pilot I assume? Going into an area looking forward, target fixated, ignoring laser warnings, ignoring tracers and flashes. No, I can't imagine.

 

Oh wait... I read it again. I AGREE. the ka50 won't know it's coming, the pilot does. :music_whistling:

 

Try decades of air force experience

 

All those decades in which the KA50 and the A10C fought in the same situation leading to a result in surviveability that cannot be considered an assumption anymore, you mean?

 

All speculations about surviveability are assumption until they are combat proven

 

Therefore, a proof, in which the combat qualities of the KA50 and A10C are compared, is based on assumptions. Hence, the proof is not valid by the definition of a proof.

Edited May 13, 2012 by TurboHog
a bit too rude... not my intention.

[Hamblue]

Amazing how the topic keeps flip flopping between the real world and the Sim.

I'm sure in the real world the A-10 is more survivable however the original quiestion was about the SIM. The way games are set up gives the sim pilot the ability to clear the path as you go. There's no urgency to get to the target area in a timely mannor to prevent friendly casualties.

 

That being the case the platform that can act as a lawn mower has the advantage.

[EtherealN]

But the laser warning receiver?

 

Nice to have.

 

Doesn't help you at all against radar-guided weapons, and only against some optically guided ones.

 

The A-10 typically doesn't even get engaged by these weapons. (Exception being A2A IR missiles, where both aircraft are equally vulnerable, but the A-10C at least has some facilities for being aware of the fact that it has been detected.)

 

Muzzle flash awareness? Tracers?

 

Not many such weapons that would even bother aiming at an A-10C at altitude. ZSU-23-4 doesn't reach to angels 25, for example. And in the case of airborne threats - the A-10C pilot will be made aware of the ranging radar as the hostile gets into a firing position. The Ka-50 won't.

 

Wire guided ATGM's never hit me. Laser guided ATGM's dont get a chance as I start moving fast with the attacker at 3 or 9 o'clock.

 

Again, weapons that wouldn't even be fired at an A-10C.

 

I detect an IR SAM launch maybe 3/10 times, but I do everything to prevent a launch in the first place by taking my time to check out and clear an area.

 

A-10C can easily operate above the range of IR SAM's, and even when it is launched upon - even from an airborne threat - it is made aware of the fact by the MLWS and the CMS will automatically attempt to defeat the threat.

 

In Ka-50, you better notice it with Mk-1 Eyeball.

 

There is no such thing as below radar altitude? Ok maybe you're right. But below tracking radar altitude exists then... The radar SAM's do not fire at me when below 20m and are inaccurate up to 50m. Is that not the case in real world? I don't know, so you tell me... But remember this discussion was about surviveability in DCS originally.

 

There's worse threats out there than SAM sites. There's threats that will come in at you from angels 40, at Mach 2, and launch a weapon you will never even have been informed of that it is on it's way if you're in a Ka-50. Remember, the days of look-down problems are largely over - you can still use notching in a look-down scenario to defeat such shots; if you are in an A-10C. If you are in a Ka-50, not so much. (Though, as mentioned, this is not true in the simulator, where the Ka-50 _can_ notch. However, the Ka-50 will not have been informed of the fact that it is being attacked at all. The A-10C however will be informed of the threat before the threat even has a detection, through the RWR, if the threat starts off at distance.)

 

When you fly KA50 you are the senseless stereotype beginning KA50 pilot I assume? Going into an area looking forward, target fixated, ignoring laser warnings, ignoring tracers and flashes. No, I can't imagine.

 

Depends entirely on how inebriated I am. The best situation I ever was in was somehow finding myself sitting straight above an enemy ZSU-23-4. Ask Panzertard how that worked out for me. But no, when not flying under the influence I of course do my best to protect myself from the weaknesses of the aircraft. But fact still remains that when I fly against humans especially I am very very worried about airborne threats since they can kill me without me ever being informed of the fact that they are there.

 

Though my greatest experience in this regard is where the A-10 and Ka-50 both are my targets, and I'm sitting in an F-15 armed with Slammers. I'll tell you, the Ka-50's never even know what hit them. From the point of view of their pilots, they just suddenly explode. The A-10 pilots (A-10A of course, in the case of FC2) are at least informed of the fact that I'm coming for them and can at least attempt to take defensive action.

 

Oh wait... I read it again. I AGREE. the ka50 won't know it's coming, the pilot does. :music_whistling:

 

Okey, so when I come in with my F-15C, on an FC2 server, and launch a slammer on you from 40 000 feet, 20 miles distant, you as a pilot will know what's coming to you... how? ;)

 

You are putting too much focus on the threats right in front of you on the ground. There's WAY more dangerous things up in the air. :)

 

 

All those decades in which the KA50 and the A10C fought in the same situation leading to a result in surviveability that cannot be considered an assumption anymore, you mean?

 

Survivability is not a matter of historical statistics. It's a summation of the capabilities of the aircraft. Factors that are included are the aids given to the pilot's buildup of SA, robustness (for example both the Ka-50 and A-10 can take a lot of damage and keep flying), defensive systems integrated in the aircraft towards defeating threats etcetera. To compare those we can observe the following:

 

1) Both the Ka-50 and the A-10 can take a lot of punishment without losing their status as aircraft and assuming status of crater. Let's call that one a draw.

2) The Ka-50 offers an LWR as far as defensive systems go. That's pretty much it. A-10C offers RWR, MLWS, Jammer, automatic CMS etc. A-10C clearly wins here. No contest.

3) The Ka-50 is restricted in altitude and has to stay low - especially considering point 2, when a "modern" battlefield is assumed. (That is, not COIN.) This altitude means it is subject to getting peppered with Triple-A, MANPADs, SHORAD etcetera etcetera. Crossrefer to the many complaints that were uttered on the forum about "how is the Ka-50 supposed to survive in the GOW campaign". It just doesn't have the systems for it. The A-10C however does. And the A-10C offers enough SA to fly high, above Triple-A and MANPAD, completely bypassing those threats. Remember - not being fired at at all is also a part of survivability. (Compare to LO aircraft like the F-117, F-22 etcetera.)

 

All speculations about surviveability are assumption until they are combat proven

 

That's the problem though. You are using the concept of survivability to mean something it doesn't. What it means is: if I take this bird to the front lines, how likely am I to get home again? In this case, it is quite obvious that the system that offers you some defensive measures will also offer you the better odds of returning home.

 

Or would you say that "all speculations about survivability are assumption" when comparing, say, a MiG-21 and an F-22? Of course not.

 

Therefore, a proof, in which the combat qualities of the KA50 and A10C are compared, is based on assumptions. Hence, the proof is not valid by the definition of a proof.

 

Actually, by the "definition" of proof, it can never ever be proven. Proof in the absolute sense is something that only exists in mathematics. So clearly, we are not using the technical definition of "proof". We are using the colloquial definition of it, by necessity. Thus yes, it is completely reasonably to point to the added defensive systems and capabilities of the A-10C and say this prooves it offers a higher survivability to the pilot.

 

In a more colloquial sense:

proof   [proof] Show IPA

noun

1.

evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.

2.

anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?

3.

the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.

4.

the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.

5.

Law . (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

 

You are talking about #3. Everyone else (appears) to be tralking about #1.

 

Under #3, yes, it is true that we cannot say anything about this as far as reality goes. But again, this is not the only practical meaning of the word. And of course, also, as far as it applies to the simulator - which is of course the key topic here, I would submit that it actually has been tested under your criteria too! And there I would offer that it is a LOT easier to survive in an A-10C than it is in a Ka-50, on the front line in a modern battle scenario. For the reasons offered by myself and others.

 

Remember, modern battle scenario means there's more than just some tanks nicely sitting still waiting for you to plink them. It means there will be hostile fighter sweeps, it means there will be enemy SHORAD and MERAD assets that are not conveniently in the open. It means there are enemy radar SAMs that don't sit there quietly with no protection.

 

Granted, in a lot of cases, especially on some online servers, there are a lot of concessions made in the mission design specifically towards helping the Ka-50 pilot to not get show down. But that's like issuing a "don't shoot the Ka-50" order, and then use the fact that the Ka-50 didn't get shot down to prove that the Ka-50 can stay alive... Doesn't work. :P

Edited May 13, 2012 by EtherealN

[TurboHog]

Mother of replies...

 

Everything I say will be broken down by two apparently moderating guys.

 

We were originally talking about surviving in DCS. In the average mission there are no serious AI a/a threaths like your helicopter killing F15s. The ka50 has more possibilities to survive in these conditions. I have yet to see what happens when FC3 is released. Maybe I agree afterwards. I dont care about the real world. You two convinced me that the KA50 may be less surviveable in a real comvat situation with good 'AI' There is no proof however that ends with QED. Oh and radar guided sam is typically not fired at low flying helicopters.

 

I stop following this thread. No one is going to give in.

Edited May 14, 2012 by TurboHog

[EtherealN]

Note that I was mainly talking about the simulator as well.

 

However, the dividing line is probably of interest here: "In the average mission there are no serious AI a/a threaths like your helicopter killing F15s."

 

Go online and this ceases to be a fact instantly. Suddenly there's a tonne of human fighter jocks out there that absolutely LOVE killing sitting ducks like the Ka-50. A-10's are relatively easy too, but at least they try to defend themselves, as I'm sure the Ka-50 pilots would also do - if they knew I was there. :)

 

In the best of worlds this threat would be diminished by friends of the Ka-50 flying top cover and telling it that "errr, dude, I've got a bandit at 210 for 40, High Hot, you need to hide right now". Unfortunately I get the impression that this is a relatively rare occurance online. I personally love babysitting Ka-50's like this - I've had jaunts where I escorted an external-tank-equipped Ka-50 that flew across the entire map to give the enemy airbase some surprises. I'd be his eyes and tell him when he needs to hide, and where the threat is coming from (and of course try to kill it if it came too close to my charge). But him alone wouldn't have stood a snowball's chance in hell since he wouldn't even have known when to worry. (But an A-10 pilot would.)

 

Oh, and yeah, I write long replies since I love the sound of my mechanical keyboard. It's a personality problem I have, sorry. :)

Edited May 14, 2012 by EtherealN

[TurboHog]

I stop following this thread. No one is going to give in.

 

nvm :music_whistling:

 

Go online and this ceases to be a fact instantly. Suddenly there's a tonne of human fighter jocks out there that absolutely LOVE killing sitting ducks like the Ka-50. A-10's are relatively easy too, but at least they try to defend themselves, as I'm sure the Ka-50 pilots would also do - if they knew I was there.

 

That's why a good KA50 pilot is not a sitting duck (most players are though), is on teamspeak and well informed about (possible) threats. An attack on me by visually acquiring me while I'm flying against a background that has the same color as my helicopter is nearly impossible. But, that is true, if they find me and track me without me noticing them I'm dead. Luckily most human fixed wing pilots completely ignore me.

 

In a dedicated dogfight test I scored 2 kills and was killed 2 times against an experienced A10C pilot. One gunpod kill and one lucky main gun kill. If we continued the fight I would have died more often than him, I think.

 

I'm starting to get your point but the KA50 is not completely defenceless against air threats as you think. My statement: In it's Air to Ground role it can be more effective than the A10C, given the pilots are both equally experienced. This applies to DCS only. Of course you will not agree with the latter statement. We should fly the same mission in a coop one day before one of us is using the word 'proof' again.

 

As for radar it should be possible to fly below radar altitude or is there the possibility to use ground radar to lock me with an AA missile?

 

Oh, and yeah, I write long replies since I love the sound of my mechanical keyboard. It's a personality problem I have, sorry.

 

:lol::thumbup:

[EtherealN]

Well, but as far as survivability we're not talking about a fight between an A-10C and a Ka-50. We're talking about the odds of coming home after doing your job, on a modern battlefield front-line. Here we have to take into account the nature of the jobs the two aircraft do, and the A-10C has a lot more tools to employ towards doing it's job safely. A huge part in this is in knowing when to "bug out". The simulator does simulate radio line-of-sight etcetera, but in the case of online play this is sort of negated by people using TS and Ventrilo for communication, which sort of "cheats" in this respect compared to reality. (Essentially you magically give the Ka-50 satellite comms.) This all is why GG (and I) talked about the enormous value of SA. The biggest part about survivability is knowing when you should take steps to remove yourself (intact) from the battlefield ASAP. And the A-10C has a lot more methods of doing this. And also, if you fail in this aspect, the A-10C offers automated threat neutralization methods. The Ka-50 does not. In the Ka-50, aside from laser-guided threats, you have absolutely nothing aside from your Mk 1 eyeball, and any friends that are nice enough to tell you stuff. In the A-10C, you have both of those PLUS a horde of other systems both for detection of threats and countermeasures against those threats.

 

Regarding radar, there is no such thing as "below radar" in a modern battlefield, if we include airborne radar emitters. A simulator limitation is that there's no IADS for the ground-based threats, but this frankly acts equally to both aircraft. But if the hostile Jet is high up, it'll see you from a LONG distance away, and be able to fire at you from a LONG distance away, even if you are flying NOE around buildings. All it takes is line-of-sight, and discrimination from clutter. Modern jet radars are very good at the latter. Again though, there is a balance/playability concession in MP where the Ka-50 gets a notch capability it really should not have against the FC flyables.

 

Now, I will agree that in the A2G role of the KA-50, it is more effective than an A-10C. It achieves this through being an attack helicopter - it does a different job. The A-10C is more effective at it's job than the Ka-50 is. Nothing weird there. But this wasn't the question - the question was "what are my odds of coming back home alive?".

[leafer]

You people scared the OP away!

[TurboHog]

You people scared the OP away!

 

Let's end this discussion. We continue to mix reality and DCS in this discussion.

 

Sorry, on behalf of me and the moderators with a different opinion, OP for making your thread explode. Read the opinions and arguments (takes only one day) and draw your own conclusion. Most importantly: see for yourself which machine is more surviveable. Good luck.

[Bushmanni]

While it's clear that in most cases the A-10C is better at staying safe I'd like to point out that there's some situations where Ka-50 would be less frustrating to go into combat in DCS. Low overcast coupled with MANPADS, SHORAD and AAA is pretty nasty for A-10C as it can't really use any of the advantages it has to stay away from enemy weapons. You can't really scan the environment from far away as the enemy units will be hidden behind terrain features, building and forests so in order to see behind them you need to get closer. But because you can't fly really slow or hover you need to fly a racetrack orbit that moves slowly towards target area but you can use TGP effectively only while flying in one direction as in the other direction it will get masked. This is very frustrating and ineffective. Other option is to fly in straight and deal with what ever gets fired at you as you don't have time to properly scan the terrain no matter how slow you fly.

 

Ka-50 in the other hand can scan the terrain completely and spot the MANPADS, AAA and SHORAD before flying in their range unless they have been hidden behind trees. While this would be impossible in real life, I'm talking about DCS here now. Spotting MANPADS at far enough range reliably takes some practice and patience but can be done. Other thing is that Ka-50 can better use terrain as cover as it's no problem to fly at 2-8m height all the way.

 

When you have to expose yourself to new terrain that can't be scanned from safe distance, you can do quick bops and see if something is obviously visible at close distance and then do a longer bop to see if something gets fired at you from longer distance. This kind of slow methodical sniper style "crawl" is quite safe and effective method to penetrate enemy lines regardless of how it's defended (if you don't consider the fighter threat). In DCS the only problem for this tactic is the see-through-trees-AI. But usually the smart mission designer takes measures to avoid this problem. In these kind of circumstances the Ka-50 would be more survivable simply because it can go very slow and very low.

 

Of course when Combined Arms comes and ground forces get smarter and more aggressive this tactic might be more challenging to pull off as you might get rushed by a tank platoon coming at you from a dead space behind a nearby hill if you stay in one spot too long but that's an another story.

[Slazi]

Quite a good discussion this. But people seem to have different ideas in mind when they post, so the answer isn't so clear. People have been talking about FC2, real life, single player, multiplayer co-op and multiplayer vs. modes.

 

I would imagine the A10 is a far more surviviable than the shark for the simple reason that it has a great rate in the real world with such a high number of flights.

 

But as people have said, you're comparing different concepts. They fill different roles.

 

So the A10 wins, but I prefer to fly the KA-50.

[Hamblue]

On second thought I guess the KA-50 might be more survivable (if he sees the threat). The pilot can simply land the chopper and run for cover and let the bird get shot up. :music_whistling:

The A-10 doesn't have that option. (except for ejecting)

[Wolfie]

Yep, after a lot of thought, were really comparing apples to oranges here.

[EtherealN]

I would imagine the A10 is a far more surviviable than the shark for the simple reason that it has a great rate in the real world with such a high number of flights.

 

Here is where I agree with TurboHog - this argument cannot be made. Turbo and me approach this from different angles, but you cannot use a historical argument for this comparison because there simply is no compatible data for the two aircarft.

[TurboHog]

On second thought I guess the KA-50 might be more survivable (if he sees the threat). The pilot can simply land the chopper and run for cover and let the bird get shot up. :music_whistling:

The A-10 doesn't have that option. (except for ejecting)

 

You have won this argument! :megalol:

[Mouse]

Let's settle this once and for all: TurboHog's Godly Ka-50 Special Invincinble[sic] Edition > A-10C > Everyone Else's Ka-50

 

Personally I would recommend the A-10C to new DCS players.

[cagrimes]

What weapons do you consider "Standoff Weapons "????????????????

 

cagrimes