Jump to content

Helicopters ruining gameplay SB


4 minutes ago, MysteriousHonza said:

You lock me with radar, i know enemy tries to engage me, r27t cant be fired without radar or irst lock, with radar i have rwr spike, with irst i have laser warning because irst is using laser rangefinder to get range info and you CANT turn that laser off if you have me locked with irst and i already know you are attacking me, generaly rwr is 360°around and 45° up and down so you have to be really close and high to be outside of its detection zone.

 

The Ka-50 only has RWR in DCS doesn't it?

 

4 minutes ago, MysteriousHonza said:

You have to close in then with radar turned off so no sa or updates on possition of heli, you have to close in on heli that is already aware of enemy so its down low, listening and looking around, with thermal equiped heli, your chances to spot it first are even smaller. Kamov can go over 300kph, that is fast enough to change position significantly to find better cover and better position to fight. 

 

2.5km as i already said. And yes i can easily close the distance, i can use the for example a passive ir mode sidewinder to find you in the area i last had radar contact of you (taking dcs as an example). Without you ver getting lock and your rwr just pinged without you having iff you immidiately go defensive and go 300 kph out of the area? i don't think so. Maybe that is the ideal reaction under the cirumcstance that you know what is coming... but that reaction to a RWR ping is a stretch. Especially if you are already occupied with ground forces. 

 

You argument is based on thefact that you know someone is coming for you. It also doesn't reflect the scenario i am comparing it to. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, DaffanZ said:

 

Right, but it's 10x more balanced than now. So unless you think nothing should be done? lmao

 

Doesn't change the fact that if you implement more modern Jets NATO will still cry about the Vikhr, because it is implemented correctly.

 

12 hours ago, DaffanZ said:

 

 

 Lol   I've been posting about v-joy for tanks forever but anyway. https://imgur.com/YxMHhg2

 

U fail to understand. I always put gameplay first, if it can be both realistic and good gameplay than it is even better (MFD).

 

Did I say you're against v-joy for tanks ? No, I said you're against losing 3rd View for tanks which you are in the Thread I've posted here already ... Nice try though.

 

12 hours ago, DaffanZ said:

bro, what do you think CTRL + F means

 

I'm sure you understand and see that you didn't bring up J-CATCH then, what the actual quack lol

 

12 hours ago, DaffanZ said:

Why are you talking about missiles only

 

is F-22 only a flying missile

 

Why am I only talking about the missile ... Hmm strange ... Because the F-22 has the exact same M61 Vulcan as the F-4E ? What would change in your expert opinion from the F-4E or whatever jet we have ingame right now ?

 

The Radar ? Don't make me laugh, if you ping someone with your Radar the RWR will pop up, doesn't matter what the US tells anyone about being invisible on the RWR ... We all know what happened during Red Flag 2012 (or should I rather call it Black Flag for the US ?) and how the Eurofighter **** on the F-22 any day of the week because US Pilots thought they're invisible, yeah, nice meme there lol

 

So, the Radar doesn't do ****, we have exactly the same Gun on the F-4E, what does change ? Ding ding, the Missiles (well technically you could also use AIM120's etc. on the F-4E) 

Now if you would understand **** about missiles you know that the AIM-7 is a Semi Active Missile, meaning you need a constant Radar Lock against the Target because otherwise the Missile goes bazinga ... You can't keep that up against a good Helo pilot, period, no matter what you're trying to believe here but it is not possible ... There is also a simple trick to be invisible to any Doppler Radar by flying perpendicular to the Radar, so nope AIM-7 no bueno mi amor.

 

What could work is the AIM-120 using the Mad Dog Launch, that means you fire the AIM-120 just blindly and hope that the active Seeker on the AIM-120 picks up a Radar signature and goes for it ... That and only that can work against good Helo Pilots using Terrain with Radar Missiles.

 

What also could work is the new AIM-9X Block II ... This is not only an IR Missile but also an Optical Guidance once ... The AIM-9X can see the silhouette of an Aircraft/Helicopter and will go for it, no matter if there is a big Heat Signature or not. 

 

So once again and I've told you that so many times now, the F-22 doesn't do anything, it would be exactly the same as the F-4E, F-15C etc. 

 

It all comes down to the Missile, no matter how much you don't want to believe that (clearly because of your lack of knowledge, I give you that) but then again, you didn't research once for 10 minutes and this is kinda pathetic to be honest with you my dude. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

 

The Ka-50 only has RWR in DCS doesn't it?

 

 

2.5km as i already said. And yes i can easily close the distance, i can use the for example a passive ir mode sidewinder to find you in the area i last had radar contact of you (taking dcs as an example). Without you ver getting lock and your rwr just pinged without you having iff you immidiately go defensive and go 300 kph out of the area? i don't think so. Maybe that is the ideal reaction under the cirumcstance that you know what is coming... but that reaction to a RWR ping is a stretch. Especially if you are already occupied with ground forces. 

 

You argument is based on thefact that you know someone is coming for you. It also doesn't reflect the scenario i am comparing it to. 

If you want to know positions, you have to stt target or tws (no such thing on planes we can get in wt or already are in) and that stt will send spike to my rwr, ill go defensive, else you will know only direction and approx position from topdow look, no altitude and exact position, i never stay on place after radar spike. Btw that sidewinder search cone is small AF, far smaller than that bs we have ingame. + to lock up heli with it, you have to be close, heli will know about you much sooner. I killed bunch of guys doing exactly that. In dcs there is currently only LWS, MWS as president system will come later, irl it should have rwr in it but we wont get it as devs dont know how it actually works on ka50. 

medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, MysteriousHonza said:

If you want to know positions, you have to stt target or tws (no such thing on planes we can get in wt or already are in) and that stt will send spike to my rwr, ill go defensive, else you will know only direction and approx position from topdow look, no altitude and exact position,

 

wich is all i need, i need to know that you are in the area, everything else is unnecessary if i know that i am looking for a helo. wich is the situation we have in WT. actually in WT i don't need radar at all, i know where the battlefield is i know where ou need to be. so the rRadar isn't necessary at all.

 

Quote

i never stay on place after radar spike. Btw that sidewinder search cone is small AF, far smaller than that bs we have ingame.

 

i was talking about the one in DCS. that is sufficient to find you.

 

Quote

+ to lock up heli with it, you have to be close, heli will know about you much sooner.

 

How? you won't hear me. If you aren't looking for me you won't. this again relys heavily on knowledge you wouldn't have at that moment.

 

Quote

I killed bunch of guys doing exactly that. In dcs there is currently only LWS, MWS as president system will come later, irl it should have rwr in it but we wont get it as devs dont know how it actually works on ka50. 

 

and the LWS coverage is? 

 

The point is in WT you get a warning on a passive IR missile that is fired directly on top of you. that should not exist. Passive IR missiles do not give LWS warnings, they do in WT.

Edited by DerGrafVonZahl
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

Doesn't change the fact that if you implement more modern Jets NATO will still cry about the Vikhr, because it is implemented correctly.

 

 

Did I say you're against v-joy for tanks ? No, I said you're against losing 3rd View for tanks which you are in the Thread I've posted here already ... Nice try though.

 

 

I'm sure you understand and see that you didn't bring up J-CATCH then, what the actual quack lol

 

 

Why am I only talking about the missile ... Hmm strange ... Because the F-22 has the exact same M61 Vulcan as the F-4E ? What would change in your expert opinion from the F-4E or whatever jet we have ingame right now ?

 

The Radar ? Don't make me laugh, if you ping someone with your Radar the RWR will pop up, doesn't matter what the US tells anyone about being invisible on the RWR ... We all know what happened during Red Flag 2012 (or should I rather call it Black Flag for the US ?) and how the Eurofighter **** on the F-22 any day of the week because US Pilots thought they're invisible, yeah, nice meme there lol

 

So, the Radar doesn't do ****, we have exactly the same Gun on the F-4E, what does change ? Ding ding, the Missiles (well technically you could also use AIM120's etc. on the F-4E) 

Now if you would understand **** about missiles you know that the AIM-7 is a Semi Active Missile, meaning you need a constant Radar Lock against the Target because otherwise the Missile goes bazinga ... You can't keep that up against a good Helo pilot, period, no matter what you're trying to believe here but it is not possible ... There is also a simple trick to be invisible to any Doppler Radar by flying perpendicular to the Radar, so nope AIM-7 no bueno mi amor.

 

What could work is the AIM-120 using the Mad Dog Launch, that means you fire the AIM-120 just blindly and hope that the active Seeker on the AIM-120 picks up a Radar signature and goes for it ... That and only that can work against good Helo Pilots using Terrain with Radar Missiles.

 

What also could work is the new AIM-9X Block II ... This is not only an IR Missile but also an Optical Guidance once ... The AIM-9X can see the silhouette of an Aircraft/Helicopter and will go for it, no matter if there is a big Heat Signature or not. 

 

So once again and I've told you that so many times now, the F-22 doesn't do anything, it would be exactly the same as the F-4E, F-15C etc. 

 

It all comes down to the Missile, no matter how much you don't want to believe that (clearly because of your lack of knowledge, I give you that) but then again, you didn't research once for 10 minutes and this is kinda pathetic to be honest with you my dude. 

Block II 9x can be launched even on datalink target, mica IR too. Aim120 irl wont find anything if maddoged (in dcs its borked AF) into general area of enemy as its radar is weak and with really small cone, maddog is for visual shots withou radar but target have to be somewhat in the middle of hud. Not to mention radar supported fox3 have to be supported all the way to pitbull and ideally even to impact. If track while scan built track is lost, missile goes to last intercept point and activates its seeker which result in significantly reduced PK for missile which is next to none even against slow moving targets. 

Edited by MysteriousHonza
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

 

Now if you would understand **** about missiles you know that the AIM-7 is a Semi Active Missile, meaning you need a constant Radar Lock against the Target because otherwise the Missile goes bazinga ... You can't keep that up against a good Helo pilot, period, no matter what you're trying to believe here but it is not possible ...

 

Weird, because in J-CATCH they were able to do exactly that and doubled their kill ratio.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

 

wich is all i need, i need to know that you are in the area, everything else is unnecessary if i know that i am looking for a helo. wich is the situation we have in WT. actually in WT i don't need radar at all, i know where the battlefield is i know where ou need to be. so the rRadar isn't necessary at all.

 

 

i was talking about the one in DCS. that is sufficient to find you.

 

 

How? you won't hear me. If you aren't looking for me you won't. this again relys heavily on knowledge you wouldn't have at that moment.

 

 

and the LWS coverage is? 

 

The point is in WT you get a warning on a passive IR missile that is fired directly on top of you. that should not exist.

Exact angles? Dunno, there is bunch of blind spots but i doubt anyone knows exactly where. Russians are keeping secret stuff even 40 years old. No chance to know exactly angles of lws and mws on their stuff. I was talking about dcs too, locking ka50 with 9m is inhuman job, its almost impossible without radar lock. Heli is too small target and 9m search cone is extremely small too. And about rwr, worst rwr ka50 would employ is spo15, this rwr can show difference betweend airborne radar, ground radar, short range sam, long range sam, awacs, ewr radar, it can show radar beam strenght so you can get rough range estimation, and it shows if its below or above you, it prioritise then what is biggest threat, if there is close airborne radar, itll show all that info about that radar prior to sam. 

Edited by MysteriousHonza
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, MysteriousHonza said:

Exact angles? Dunno, there is bunch of blind spots but i doubt anyone knows exactly where. Russians are keeping secret stuff even 40 years old. No chance to know exactly angles of lws and mws on their stuff. I was talking about dcs too, locking ka50 with 9m is inhuman job, its almost impossible without radar lock. Heli is too small target and 9m search cone is extremely small too. 

 

i never had much problems in the past. Maybe things changed. i haven't played since 2.0.

Also i am pretty sure R27Ts can be fired passive without a laser. But maybe that changed as well.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

 

i never had much problems in the past. Maybe things changed. i haven't played since 2.0.

Also i am pretty sure R27Ts can be fired passive without a laser. But maybe that changed as well.

It have to be locked on target afaik so irst or radar, if you use irst, you have always present laser. I added somethi g to previous reply about rwr what would be in ka50 in older period. But if you have flown dcs flanker, you already know how spo15 works i suppose. 

Edited by MysteriousHonza
medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

 

Weird, because in J-CATCH they were able to do exactly that and doubled their kill ratio.

 

Weird

 

Army aviator Davis Tindall Jr., summarized the findings of J-CATCH's third phase several years after the fact:

The J-CATCH testing provided the most interesting insights concerning the capability of fighter aircraft to engage the attack helicopter. The Air Force aircrews found the helicopter to be extremely difficult to hit. They found out that the helicopter was virtually impossible to track. The best technique to achieve a kill was a slashing attack, a quick surprise attack. They discovered the helicopter was not a slow, vulnerable target. It could be a dangerous foe. The air crews' after-action reports found the helicopter to be as dangerous as a ground gun emplacement.

The J-CATCH findings did not recommend the AIM-7E and F [Sparrow radar-guided] air-to-air missiles against low altitude targets. The problem has to do with establishing a lock-on because or ground clutter and the infrared source

Yes, indeed ... Very weird ... The fact that they doubled the kill ratio was simply because of the fact that the Helicopter Pilots didn't adjust their tactics to the AIM7

Nice try though

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MysteriousHonza said:

Block II 9x can be launched even on datalink target, mica IR too. Aim120 irl wont find anything if maddoged (in dcs its borked AF) into general area of enemy as its radar is weak and with really small cone, maddog is for visual shots withou radar but target have to be somewhat in the middle of hud. Not to mention radar supported fox3 have to be supported all the way to pitbull and ideally even to impact. If track while scan built track is lost, missile goes to last intercept point and activates its seeker which result in significantly reduced PK for missile which is next to none even against slow moving targets. 

 

AIM120 works when launched in Pitbull Mode, but as you said the Kill Probability isn't very high, it's actually funny because a Blackhawk got shot down by an AIM 120 in a blue on blue accident when the AIM120 was launched in Pitbull Mode. 

That's why I said there is a chance, not likely but there is a chance :)

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

Weird

 

Army aviator Davis Tindall Jr., summarized the findings of J-CATCH's third phase several years after the fact:

The J-CATCH testing provided the most interesting insights concerning the capability of fighter aircraft to engage the attack helicopter. The Air Force aircrews found the helicopter to be extremely difficult to hit. They found out that the helicopter was virtually impossible to track. The best technique to achieve a kill was a slashing attack, a quick surprise attack. They discovered the helicopter was not a slow, vulnerable target. It could be a dangerous foe. The air crews' after-action reports found the helicopter to be as dangerous as a ground gun emplacement.

The J-CATCH findings did not recommend the AIM-7E and F [Sparrow radar-guided] air-to-air missiles against low altitude targets. The problem has to do with establishing a lock-on because or ground clutter and the infrared source

 

yes as i posted the official recommondation was aim-9 sidewinders at 2.5km

 

2 hours ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

Yes, indeed ... Very weird ... The fact that they doubled the kill ratio was simply because of the fact that the Helicopter Pilots didn't adjust their tactics to the AIM7

Nice try though

 

You have actual reports for that or just word of mouth?

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, MysteriousHonza said:

R27s have huuuge smoke trail, each time ive got radar spike i turn its way and i start searching, ka52 will use thermals and see missile. If you use radar and then eo, right after dropping radar lock, laser activates so heli is being illuminated by laser range finder, same results, i know iam being engaged, in real heli, it shows direction from where, ill turn that way and ill see that launch as you can spot these smoke trails miles away. The way how you should defend is prior to enemy launch, you should deny your opponent launch, not counter already launched weapon, proper defense is to break enemy attack without being fired upon you. Everything you need for this is rwr spike or laser warning system to force you into defensive. Each tine i fly dcs and iam below 10nm with high approach speed on headon to enemy plane, i start flaring, especially against aim9 launcher because 9m is smokeless, i expect hes going to launch so i deploy flares before he attacks, if he launches, aim9 will be dead right after launch. Thats the way to defend, not to wait for opponent to fire. Each time you give enemy launch, his pk gets higher as he can close in more for closer launch with far better PK whlie you are force to fight with missile and not enemy plane and your live chances significantly drop. And iam sure lennox knows that and thats why hes hammering those unawere people out there who claims something but actually knows nothing about slightly more modern combat than korea. Sorry for english if there are misspelled words or absolutely nonsense ones, iam writing it on phone in work and my keyboar correction is not 100% in english so it changes words and i have fat fingers so somrtimes word looks strange. 

 


So what your saying is, the missiles are useless to add to the game because it is counter-able by someone trying really hard and doing everything to defend? 

 

Let's not even forget the fact that the actual plane upgrade itself is the most important upgrade. Or do you subscribe to the believe that if top-attack is all we need we should just be happy we can fly biplanes. 

 

  

6 hours ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

 

Did I say you're against v-joy for tanks ? No, I said you're against losing 3rd View for tanks which you are in the Thread I've posted here already ... Nice try though.

 

"Realistic gunning" is what you said. Or are you imply we should have hard mounted joystick / steering device on our desk?

 

6 hours ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

I'm sure you understand and see that you didn't bring up J-CATCH then, what the actual quack lol

 

 

Why am I only talking about the missile ... Hmm strange ... Because the F-22 has the exact same M61 Vulcan as the F-4E ? What would change in your expert opinion from the F-4E or whatever jet we have ingame right now ?

 

The Radar ? Don't make me laugh, if you ping someone with your Radar the RWR will pop up, doesn't matter what the US tells anyone about being invisible on the RWR ... We all know what happened during Red Flag 2012 (or should I rather call it Black Flag for the US ?) and how the Eurofighter **** on the F-22 any day of the week because US Pilots thought they're invisible, yeah, nice meme there lol

 

So, the Radar doesn't do ****, we have exactly the same Gun on the F-4E, what does change ? Ding ding, the Missiles (well technically you could also use AIM120's etc. on the F-4E) 

Now if you would understand **** about missiles you know that the AIM-7 is a Semi Active Missile, meaning you need a constant Radar Lock against the Target because otherwise the Missile goes bazinga ... You can't keep that up against a good Helo pilot, period, no matter what you're trying to believe here but it is not possible ... There is also a simple trick to be invisible to any Doppler Radar by flying perpendicular to the Radar, so nope AIM-7 no bueno mi amor.

 

What could work is the AIM-120 using the Mad Dog Launch, that means you fire the AIM-120 just blindly and hope that the active Seeker on the AIM-120 picks up a Radar signature and goes for it ... That and only that can work against good Helo Pilots using Terrain with Radar Missiles.

 

What also could work is the new AIM-9X Block II ... This is not only an IR Missile but also an Optical Guidance once ... The AIM-9X can see the silhouette of an Aircraft/Helicopter and will go for it, no matter if there is a big Heat Signature or not. 

 

So once again and I've told you that so many times now, the F-22 doesn't do anything, it would be exactly the same as the F-4E, F-15C etc. 

 

It all comes down to the Missile, no matter how much you don't want to believe that (clearly because of your lack of knowledge, I give you that) but then again, you didn't research once for 10 minutes and this is kinda pathetic to be honest with you my dude. 

 

So if you put a m61 on a biplane it would be acceptable?

 

 

 

 

Edited by DaffanZ
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

 

yes as i posted the official recommondation was aim-9 sidewinders at 2.5km

 

And that's a hard solid no ... They said you should use AIM-9 Sidewinders while not accounting for the fact that the majority of Russian Helicopters are using HIRSS, during J-CATCH they used Sea Kings and Cobras, both of them not using HIRSS at that time.

 

The only missile that could kill a Helicopter reliably is the AIM-9X

 

1 hour ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

 

 

You have actual reports for that or just word of mouth?

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a180904.pdf

 

Page 21-23

 

I could post tons of sources and you guys still won't bother to look at them ... Freaking amazing

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

And that's a hard solid no ... They said you should use AIM-9 Sidewinders while not accounting for the fact that the majority of Russian Helicopters are using HIRSS, during J-CATCH they used Sea Kings and Cobras, both of them not using HIRSS at that time.

 

The only missile that could kill a Helicopter reliably is the AIM-9X

 

And you get that from where?

 

They didn't say anything of the sort as that report was from 1982. Please provide sources.

 

Quote

 

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a180904.pdf

 

Page 21-23

 

I could post tons of sources and you guys still won't bother to look at them ... Freaking amazing

 

 

This only states infos about the Helos carrying guided weapons nothing about their defense against mid ranged radar guider air to air weapons, wich was what i was asking you about. Because you said the double kill ratio was insignificant if proper tactics are used by helos. The passage you send me was about difference in equipment.

Edited by DerGrafVonZahl
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, DaffanZ said:

So what your saying is, the missiles are useless to add to the game because it is counter-able by someone trying really hard and doing everything to defend? 

 

I'm not saying useless to add, I'm saying useless against a low flying Helo ... But by all means, PLEASE add them so I can see the tears of all the NATO players that will post thousand of threads on the forum with the title "hurr durr modern missiles are supposed to destroy helos" ... So yes, absolutely add them to the game !

 

46 minutes ago, DaffanZ said:

Let's not even forget the fact that the actual plane upgrade itself is the most important upgrade. Or do you subscribe to the believe that if top-attack is all we need we should just be happy we can fly biplanes.

 

Ah yes, let's see ... Argueably the most important part of a plane is literally useless against a ground hugging Helicopter that knows what it's doing ... So what's left ? Avionics ? No plane is as agile as a Helicopter, doesn't matter if the plane is from 1940, 2000 or 2100 

Guns ? As I said before, the F-4E uses the same Vulcan as the F-22 does, so doesn't matter

Stealth ? If you have your Radar up and ping me once I know you're there, so Radar isn't even the best option here

 

So what's left that the upgraded plane can do that a plane from the 50's can't ? I mean, you're such an expert here that qualifies for every single category, I'm sure you can tell everyone here how the "upgraded plane is actually the most important upgrade" ? 

 

46 minutes ago, DaffanZ said:

"Realistic gunning" is what you said. Or are you imply we should have hard mounted joystick / steering device on our desk?

 

Sure, but at the same time you're for Tanks losing 3rd View, getting realistic gunning, getting rid of the ridiculous default sight etc, am I right 

 

I know that you're not, you already replied that Tanks shouldn't lose 3rd View and all that stuff

 

So once again, where did I say you're against realistic gunning ? I said you're against losing 3rd view for Tanks ... Holy jebus

 

46 minutes ago, DaffanZ said:

So if you put a m61 on a biplane it would be acceptable?

 

Yeah absolutely ! /s

 

You do know that there is even a test from 1944, Bf-109s vs. a Helicopter and they literally haven't been able to shoot down the Helicopter at all ... We have tests from more of like 60 years in total and you still can't accept the fact ... Holy good Lord.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

 

And you get that from where?

 

They didn't say anything of the sort as that report was from 1982. Please provide sources.

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a180904.pdf

 

Page 19 - 24

 

I'm not even gonna reply further to you because you obviously can't even check sources that I've sent multiple times in this thread now ... It's so god damn pathetic that I provide tons of sources and you guys ignore them completely, coming up with stupid DCS thoughts "hurr durr you could do that and I can do that" while I have ACTUAL sources on hand from Experiments ... This is beyond ridiculous.

 

4 minutes ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

This only states infos about the Helos carrying guided weapons nothing about their defense against mid ranged radar guider air to air weapons, wich was what i was asking you about. Because you said the double kill ratio was insignificant if proper tactics are used by helos. The passage you send me was about difference in equipment.

 

Once again, not able to read the Reports I sent ... Yes I know, words are hard to read but I mean come on, can't you read 20 pages of a PDF File I sent here ? My god, ridiculous, just plain and simple ridiculous.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a180904.pdf

 

Page 19 - 24

 

I'm not even gonna reply further to you because you obviously can't even check sources that I've sent multiple times in this thread now ... It's so god damn pathetic that I provide tons of sources and you guys ignore them completely, coming up with stupid DCS thoughts "hurr durr you could do that and I can do that" while I have ACTUAL sources on hand from Experiments ... This is beyond ridiculous.

 

The sources state exactly what i claimed, the missile ratio was 2.9 while guns 1.3 max. It doesn't say AIM/ sparrows are useless and do not double the kill ratios if helicopters use different tactice. It says the ratio is affected by equipment. Your claim was due to AIM7 being unable to gtet a proper lock they are useless. this is statetd nowhere in the report. You are using astrawman here. Your statement was specific, and the eport doesn't answer that claim i responded to.

 

 

2 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

Once again, not able to read the Reports I sent ...

 

first i posted the report and i read it and it doesn't even cover how specific changes in helicopter tactics (tactics and tactics alone) change the kill ratios. Because there wasn't a second test with numbers where the helos change tactics.

 

2 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

Yes I know, words are hard to read but I mean come on, can't you read 20 pages of a PDF File I sent here ? My god, ridiculous, just plain and simple ridiculous.

 

no you don't know how proper testing ist done... wich is fine.  ad hominems are nice too i guess.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

I'm not saying useless to add, I'm saying useless against a low flying Helo ... But by all means, PLEASE add them so I can see the tears of all the NATO players that will post thousand of threads on the forum with the title "hurr durr modern missiles are supposed to destroy helos" ... So yes, absolutely add them to the game !

 

Y are you replying to this  I wasn't even quoting u there

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

 

The sources state exactly what i claimed, the missile ratio was 2.9 while guns 1.3 max. It doesn't say AIM/ sparrows are useless and do not double the kill ratios if helicopters use different tactice. It says the ratio is affected by equipment. Your claim was due to AIM7 being unable to gtet a proper lock they are useless. this is statetd nowhere in the report. You are using astrawman here. Your statement was specific, and the eport doesn't answer that claim i responded to.

 

Wow great, did you also read the recommendation of the J-CATCH ? Obviously not ...

 

"The J-CATCH findings did not recommend the AIM-7E and F air-to-air missiles against low altitude targets." Page 20 ... Yes, I mean of course they put that on the Report just for giggles, I got you !

 

I'm actually at a loss of words here, wow.

 

2 minutes ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

first i posted the report and i read it and it doesn't even cover how specific changes in helicopter tactics (tactics and tactics alone) change the kill ratios. Because there wasn't a second test with numbers where the helos change tactics.

 

 

no you don't know how proper testing ist done... wich is fine.  ad hominems are nice too i guess.

 

But then again we have the so called ACE Report that just confirms what I said ... Go find the ACE Report I've posted here, I'm not gonna post it again :)

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what's really funny though

 

He is against missiles/upgrades only because he say they suck at 10 meters off the ground, as if this will be the battle condition 100% of the time (oh and the helo pilot having omniscience to know all threats and defend accordingly)

 

 

 

 

 

 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

Wow great, did you also read the recommendation of the J-CATCH ? Obviously not ...

 

"The J-CATCH findings did not recommend the AIM-7E and F air-to-air missiles against low altitude targets." Page 20 ... Yes, I mean of course they put that on the Report just for giggles, I got you !

 

Yes they say that. But (!!!) and I don't know why I even need to point it out. THAT WAS NOT YOUR CLAIM!!!! 

 

The aim7 is still more effective than guns. 

 

Your claim was that a change in tactic lowers the effectiveness of the aim7 from double the effectiveness guns have. And for the specific(!!!) claim I wanted evidence as that is the claim I quoted. And no the report has no such information. 

 

So the evidence I need is for a test of a tactic that reduces the effectiveness of the aim7 to lower than double the effectiveness of guns.... Because that was the specific claim I asked evidence for. 

 

 

Just now, IKG51_Lennox said:

I'm actually at a loss of words here, wow.

 

Because you can't grasp for what I asked evidence. I never asked for evidence for the claim that aim7s aren't recommended. I even agreed that they weren't recommended in the original post. I quoted a specific claim I wanted evidence for. Wich was the reason I quoted it. Now you present a claim I never asked evidence for.... Great job... Next time read better. 

 

Just now, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

But then again we have the so called ACE Report that just confirms what I said ... Go find the ACE Report I've posted here, I'm not gonna post it again :)

 

 

2 minutes ago, DaffanZ said:

You know what's really funny though

 

He is against missiles/upgrades only because he say they suck at 10 meters off the ground, as if this will be the battle condition 100% of the time (oh and the helo pilot having omniscience to know all threats and defend accordingly)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

He doesn't even understand what is asked of him so I am not surprised. 

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

 

Yes they say that. But (!!!) and I don't know why I even need to point it out. THAT WAS NOT YOUR CLAIM!!!! 

 

The aim7 is still more effective than guns. 

 

Your claim was that a change in tactic lowers the effectiveness of the aim7 from double the effectiveness guns have. And for the specific(!!!) claim I wanted evidence as that is the claim I quoted. And no the report has no such information. 

 

My claim was that the AIM-7 is useless against low flying Helicopters because you can't keep a constant radar lock up ... Period, that's exactly what I said 

 

The Report literally proves my point by not recommending the AIM-7 against low flying targets because guess what ? IT'S USELESS.

 

Yes, the AIM-7 is more effective against High Flying Targets, congrats, I would love to see how effective the AIM-7 is when the usual combat altitude of the Helicopters ingame is less than 100 meters :o)

 

Quote

 

So the evidence I need is for a test of a tactic that reduces the effectiveness of the aim7 to lower than double the effectiveness of guns.... Because that was the specific claim I asked evidence for. 

 

Because you can't grasp for what I asked evidence. I never asked for evidence for the claim that aim7s aren't recommended. I even agreed that they weren't recommended in the original post. I quoted a specific claim I wanted evidence for. Wich was the reason I quoted it. Now you present a claim I never asked evidence for.... Great job... Next time read better. 

 

What ? I said the AIM-7 was useless if you can't keep a constant lock up ... Holy mother of god. 

 

I would like to have the exact quote that I ever said that the "tactic that reduces the effectiveness of the aim7 to lower than double the effectiveness of guns" .. I'm waiting :o)

 

I said they doubled the Kill Ratio by having the AIM-7 deployed and used it against High Flying Helos ... Not a single word about guns, but I mean, reading is hard for both of you, I totally get it :o)

Edited by IKG51_Lennox
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, IKG51_Lennox said:

 

My claim was that the AIM-7 is useless against low flying Helicopters because you can't keep a constant radar lock up ... Period, that's exactly what I said 

 

Then why respond to my post the way you did? I had a post with specific numbers and your claim came as a quote to the exact passage. If you didn't mean that exact passage to disagree with. Why quote it? 

 

Quote

The Report literally proves my point by not recommending the AIM-7 against low flying targets because guess what ? IT'S USELESS.

 

It was still more effective than guns in the tests. And as long as there aren't any test with a more specific setup everything seems to be correct what I said. 

 

Quote

Yes, the AIM-7 is more effective against High Flying Targets, congrats, I would love to see how effective the AIM-7 is when the usual combat altitude of the Helicopters ingame is less than 100 meters :o)

 

Nothing I said who cares. Stop injecting stuff only respond to specific words. Otherwise you end up responding to what you think I said instead of what I said... Again. Wich makes this entire thing useless. 

 

BTW the usual altitude for an attack of a fighter is much lower as well often I attack Helis from lower altitude than the Helis itself has. So ground clutter isn't an issue. But WT is irrelevant here as you claimed you can provide numbers. Wich in the end came down to you quoting parts of my texts and responding to something different. Wich really isn't the point of the quote function. 

 

 

 

 

Quote

 

What ? I said the AIM-7 was useless if you can't keep a constant lock up ... Holy mother of god. 

 

But that wasn't what I asked for evidence for. Again I said that in the test it showed that aim7 were still twice as effective as guns. Wich you denied by word of mouth. Because the report does not quantify your recommended change in tactics. So you can't make this claim. At least not about specific numbers. You can say the reliability of the aim 7 is greatly reduced but you cannot put a number on it... And therefore can't answer questions about specific quantities... But you did anyway. 

 

Wich is exactly my criticism. 

Edited by DerGrafVonZahl
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

It was still more effective than guns in the tests. And as long as there aren't any test with a more specific setup everything seems to be correct what I said. 

 

Holy mother of god ... I'll explain it one last time ... And one last time only ...

 

It was more effective against High Flying Helicopters, against Ground hugging Helicopters the AIM-7 proved ineffective (or useless, whatever word you prefer) ... You have it black on white by the statement that the J-CATCH findings DON'T recommend it against low flying targets ... Is that so hard to understand ? 

 

If they don't recommend it against low flying targets, what do you think is more effective ? Ding ding, Guns and Missiles ... I really have absolutely no clue what's so hard to understand at this point.

 

1 minute ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

Nothing I said who cares. Stop injecting stuff only respond to specific words. Otherwise you end up responding to what you think I said instead of what I said... Again. Wich makes this entire thing useless. 

 

BTW the usual altitude for an attack of a fighter is much lower as well often I attack Helis from lower altitude than the Helis itself has. So ground clutter isn't an issue. But WT is irrelevant here as you claimed you can provide numbers. Wich in the end came down to you quoting parts of my texts and responding to something different. Wich really isn't the point of the quote function. 

 

Wow, you're using Tactics from Fighter Pilots that used it in J-CATCH, I'm impressed ! Now I wonder who can fly lower, a Helicopter or a Plane :o)

 

And yes, I did provide numbers multiple times now ... If you can't read in context it's not my problem, sorry not sorry. 

 

1 minute ago, DerGrafVonZahl said:

But that wasn't what I asked for evidence for. Again I said that in the test it showed that aim7 were still twice as effective as guns. Wich you denied by word of mouth. Because the report does not quantify your recommended change in tactics. So you can't make this claim. At least not about specific numbers. You can say the reliability of the aim 7 is greatly reduced but you cannot put a number on it... And therefore can't answer questions about specific quantities... But you did anyway. 

 

Wich is exactly my criticism. 

 

Yes, I denied it by saying the AIM-7 is not as effective as guns against low flying targets ... Is that true or not ?

 

If the official report says they do not recommend using the AIM-7 but instead go for the Sidewinder it's safe to say that it's not greatly reduced but plain and simple useless, once again, I'm trying to understand what is so hard to understand about that statement. 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...