Helicopters are harder to fly?
edit: nap of earth operations require higher level of attention from pilot?
2 Likes
My feeling too.
I think that it has to do with the implementation of the mission. Helicopters have certain features that would make implementation different over fixed wing.
One caveat: I think that I read somewhere that the A-10 was not expected to live long in a cold war gone hot scenerio … so remember that too (and I need to find a source for that too);
-
So the A-10C/Su-25 can hold off either out of range or at a high altitude to stay away from most ‘close in’ SAMs (IR, shoulder fired, etc) were as that is harder for a helicopter - it might seem easy but hovering is relatively hard and, well, you are stationary, making you easy to track as you set up for your run;
-
Attached to the point above is the risk in a stable hover of the enemy being able to sneak up on you. Two pairs of eyes, looking for that SAM launch/target is going to be super useful given the way that the helicopter is going to do it’s hunt mission;
-
Helicopters can use ridge lines and buildings to duck behind or pop up from behind, something that an A-10 or Su-25 can’t but the pop up, acquire targets and fire has to be fast because you are likely much closer to the enemy. Here, 2 people are going to be able to do that easier and faster increasing both the success and speed of the tactic;
-
Enroute to the target, generally, fixed wing assets ingress/egress at a much higher altitude, making an ambush for them harder to execute. Helicopters are more prone to this ‘back field’ ambush so two sets of eyes looking for the SAM/AAA again, is going to be almost necessary;
-
With todays systems knowledge and software.sensors, I think that helicopters can be more effective with one person than before but, the tactics of implementation put them in a much different defensive position and 2 crew will always be better than 1 where as the fixed wing implementation, 2 crew could be better served in two aircraft
(and I know that argument could be made for the helicopter as well but it comes down to being a difficult beast to handle low or in a hover);
8 Likes
Well… That was a brilliant explanation.
+1
2 Likes
The weapons used by both platforms also play a huge roll. For fixed wing AT work, most munitions are self guiding, requiring a minimal to moderate run in, followed by the ability to break. This flight profile is conducive to single pilot operation. Most rotary AT weapons are not self guided (and ALOT lighter consequently, one Maverick is about the weight of 5-6 Hellfires), and as such require the ability for the plaform to retain eyes on the majority of the flight time. This is not conducive to single pilot operation solely in the need to avoid controlled flight into terrain, we’re not even getting into threat detection and avoidance.
If we wanted to limit rotary assets to having prelased targets, or only carrying 1-2 self guiding weapons we probably could trim them down to a single pilot and use them for that task.
One caveat: I think that I read somewhere that the A-10 was not expected to live long in a cold war gone hot scenerio … so remember that too (and I need to find a source for that too);
- So the A-10C/Su-25 can hold off either out of range or at a high altitude to stay away from most ‘close in’ SAMs (IR, shoulder fired, etc) were as that is harder for a helicopter - it might seem easy but hovering is relatively hard and, well, you are stationary, making you easy to track as you set up for your run;
In anything approaching a modern battlefield high altitude is a synonym for promptly shot down by either air cover or the ton of SAMs on the battlefield. The higher you go the more trouble you run into as the SAM envelopes overlap, and missiles are longer ranged and faster too.
- Attached to the point above is the risk in a stable hover of the enemy being able to sneak up on you. Two pairs of eyes, looking for that SAM launch/target is going to be super useful given the way that the helicopter is going to do it’s hunt mission;
The way a helo has to engage currently is again a function of it’s ordinance. Against light targets or when someone else is able to do the targeting (ground lasing for hellfires for example), helo’s fly gun runs just like fixed wings. The exception would be the pop-up to fire off a volley of missiles, which is the same concept as a run in and break, get the heck out of the line of fire ASAP.
- Helicopters can use ridge lines and buildings to duck behind or pop up from behind, something that an A-10 or Su-25 can’t but the pop up, acquire targets and fire has to be fast because you are likely much closer to the enemy. Here, 2 people are going to be able to do that easier and faster increasing both the success and speed of the tactic;
No arguments here, speed is life in the context of being shot at.
- Enroute to the target, generally, fixed wing assets ingress/egress at a much higher altitude, making an ambush for them harder to execute. Helicopters are more prone to this ‘back field’ ambush so two sets of eyes looking for the SAM/AAA again, is going to be almost necessary;
I think this is a function of the US fighting conflicts where we have had almost total air superiority since WW2. With the introduction of SAM’s in Vietnam, this didn’t work out nearly as well. The IAF found that out the hard way as well. Yes well back from the FLoB you can be high, but as soon as you are in threat range, that is probably not the best plan. Also an “ambush” in the sense of anti-air assets penetrating the FLoB I think is again more of a concern of the counter insurgent wars we’ve been fighting. Against an enemy with an actual air defense structure, the threat of getting whacked by a SAM designed to knock down F-22s and F-35’s that is emplaced 70 km’s behind the front is probably a bigger threat than catching a SA-7 up the exhaust from a Spetsnaz team that has infiltrated onto a ridge line somewhere.
- With todays systems knowledge and software.sensors, I think that helicopters can be more effective with one person than before but, the tactics of implementation put them in a much different defensive position and 2 crew will always be better than 1 where as the fixed wing implementation, 2 crew could be better served in two aircraft
I would argue that any kill chain that includes active crew controlled guidance, needs two or more crew period if you expect the AC to do the guiding. Think about how many digital aircraft most of us have flown into the ground, trying to learn how to use a TGP to drop LGB’s or similar on targets. Most of use aren’t masochistic enough to try to stop a tank column with LGB’s and a tgp (which automates a lot of the crew guidance) with a realistic enemy air threat, and air defense setup. Since the first radio guided bombs in WW2 up to the present day, the VAST majority of crew controlled guidance has been SUCCESSFULLY employed only onn multi-crew aircraft. It’s been tried on single seaters, but there’s a reason pretty much all A2G aircraft that carry crew guided ordinance these days is a 2 or more seater.
3 Likes
Yeah. I am not arguing the points, just what came off the top of my head with regard to differences in the way the platforms fight.
Sorry. I should have said ‘higher’. What I meant was out of the shoulder launch range but certainly below (or out of) the modern SAM threat.
Ok but I guess I would argue that the ordinance it can carry is also a function of its flight envelope including carrying capacity, etc. And this still sits within the manner in which a helicopter needs to fight its fight which almost demands a second set of eyes, ears, hands and a brain.
Yes. Again this was only a brain exercise with respect to having/requiring a crew of two versus one and not intended as a broad characterization of the platforms or environment.
And I totally agree. Given the ordnance available (as you mention) and the flight envelope and how it would be tactically executed, this lends the helicopter platform to (almost) requiring two crew whereas a similarly tasked fixed wing asset would operate differently and (almost) require only one crew.
I don’t want to get into an argument about this but I would respectfully disagree. I am not considering bombers (B-whatevers), because they are going to have entirely different tactical profiles.I am just focusing on the thought experiment of single-crew versus multi-crew in the scope the environment that we ‘fight’ in in DCS.
3 Likes
@Fridge & @jenrick - just thought I’d point out you are both (respectfully) in the very argument that has been guiding aircraft design of the platforms that generated this discussion (uh-oh, infinite loop detected!).
I have enjoyed reading the back and forth last few posts, the insights that can be drawn as to why one platform or weapon works one way and not another become clearer when you analyze the various variables involved like this. Please continue!
3 Likes
True enough, which is why US doctrine relies on SEAD/DEAD to take out the high performance SAMs. At that point, the MANPADS and AAA comes into play which is why fixed wing like to stay above 10K AGL.
Now that is something that I hadn’t thought about! I think you have 
…supposed to be “hit nail on the head” emoji but no nail emoji…OK, how about this 
1 Like
Uhh what?
Yes sams go high and far. But it’s not likely to be doing CAS if you’ve got nasty sam systems watching you. That’s what sead/dead/ew assets are for.
Know what likes to hide in valleys that would make a good, radar masked, ingress? Mobile sams, AAA, manpads, and plenty more things that are waiting to kill you. It’s easy to hit a fixed SA-2, it’s harder to kill every dude with a stinger.
Annnnd nope.
2 Likes
I am referring to a situation of conventional warfare. The hypothetical Russians across the Rhine and such. In that case yes we will have DEAD/SEAD assets in action, but we will not have enough, and they will not get everything. Our doctrine throughout most of the cold war was low, fast, and haul… we’ll you guys know the rest. At that time, much like now, the DEAD/SEAD team is going to have a heck of time against OPFOR modern SAM’s. The HARM having a range of about 80 NM is going to be out ranged by a lot of modern SAM’s. Yes those SAM systems won’t be everywhere, but they will probably be over the critical armored thrust that we have to send CAS assets against.
Secondly again, as a uniquely American experience, we’ve had total air superiority in pretty much every conflict since Korea, and even Korea was usually tactical air superiority. What would a flight of A-10’s at FL25 look like to an OPFOR CAP flight? And yes that’s why we have out our own CAP fighters in the air too.
In a conflict with peer/near peer adversaries, a lot of the tactics we’ve used in the last decade or 2 I’d argue aren’t appropriate. Just like we found that the tactics against peer/near peer adversaries weren’t appropriate when fighting an adversary that wasn’t. Example: Coming into the first gulf war, the doctrine for the RAF for the Tornado’s was extreme low level and high speed. This arose from the cold war, where being at anything higher than tree top level was just asking to get whacked Soviet SAMs or CAP aircraft. The first night of the airwar, the RAF found that the SAM threat of the older generations SAM’s in Iraqi hands wasn’t near as severe as the threat of the thousands of AAA guns the Iraqi’s had. After the first wave of strikes by and large destroyed the “integrated” nature of the Iraqi IADS, the coalition switched to medium and high altitude tactics. The Iraqi AF was a non-factor as well by this point, thus creating the situation where it was safer to fly high.
Mobile SAM systems like the SA-7 and stinger usually top out at 10,000 feet. Why is that? Because if you can force threat aircraft up higher you get them into the realm of the much more lethal SAM systems. MANPADs and point defense SAM’s are weapons of volume to achieve kills, but function very well as a tool of airspace denial. AAA being in the same category. Why did the Soviets have so many short range low altitude air defense assets in an average motor rifle regiment? To either force CAS assets up into the more lethal SAM’s to avoid them, or to have a reasonable chance of knocking down an attacker.
I will grant that my above statement would argue that single seaters dropping LGB’s with on board TGP’s don’t work. In the context of a anti-armor discussion in a cold-war gone hot scenario I think what I said stands true. I’m curious your counter examples.
1 Like
Oh no hard feelings at all, sorry if I came off that way. I just enjoy a good internet debate!
These days, and throughout the coldwar, I’d wager that there wasn’t much of an altitude band that didn’t get you in trouble. MANPAD’s are capable up to about 10,000’ (officially), if we go with 5,000’ as a more realistic figure that still puts you up into middle of SA-6 territory (to pick a mobile and lethal SAM system that would be tagging along with a motor rifle regiment). The main advantage SUPER low has is that you limit the engagement horizon massively, and dramatically decrease the engagement time period for any system you encounter. Both a win for the aircraft. Additionally up into about the mid 80’s early 90’s, super low kept you out of the engagement range of almost anything EXCEPT MANPAD’s, and the lighter AAA, while creating a much more difficult problem for aerial interception (there’s a reason look down, shoot down as so important of a development). After that the SAM designers, started to chip away at that little bit of safety too.
One additional factor we tend to not think about with altitude, it makes it REALLY hard to spot and engage targets. A competent enemy isn’t going to charge across a featureless plain or open desert giving us plenty of easy engagements. DCS’s terrain has gotten better about this, but it’s still nowhere near as hard as it would be in real life to things out among the dust, smoke, and darkness.
I think our last two decades of combat operations, along with Gulf War 1 have led to a particular model of employment that doesn’t reflect the expected realities of combat from when a lot of these systems were developed. And which, if which if we engaged in peer/near peer conflict again any time soon, will be engaged in. Additionally I think that the mission design in DCS usually doesn’t accurately reflect the realities of combat in these types of environments, in an effort to provide some player enjoyment.
In DCS there is a “metagaming” aspect in multiplayer, based on the effectiveness of a combatant versus the fun it is to employee. We also mix assets, time periods, etc in an effort to have fun challenging scenarios, nothing wrong with that either. However I think drawing conclusions based on that might lead to some erroneous conclusions OUTSIDE of DCS. Within the realm of DCS they are absolutely valid.
2 Likes
Way out of the bounds of this discussion - but UCAVs bring a whole new dimension to the moral decisions of warfare. As with any technology of course, but it certainly keeps going down that road in an ever more interesting way.
2 Likes
There were some scenes in the Amazon series “Jack Ryan” that really hit that home. Absolutely no idea if they were accurate or not, but cool to see the UCAV pilots/command center depicted, and so strange to think that they are sitting in Nevada while flying and fighting in the middle east.
I’m kicking this one back up after thinking about a few things, especially after having had @Wes run the RIO seat and hopping back there myself last night:
-
Situational awareness. You would think that having two aircraft would give you better SA, but I felt that having Wes in the back to watch other aircraft from our perspective worked far better than having two divided aircraft. He was able to watch secondary threats in a 4vs3 engagement while I prosecuted a primary target. Coupled with his control and management of ECM and CMS, my workload was strictly about prosecuting my target and killing him.
-
Radio and communications. I realize that in DCS we’re somewhat hamstrung compared to real crews (maybe?) but having to pop the right comm button, navigate through the menus, make sure my radios were set right, etc. is a pretty big job and divides attention in a big way. Having Wes in the back to manage those communications and navigating through the menus was a pretty big boost.
-
While aircraft like the Bug have a lot of automatic features when dealing with the radar, many of which are quite useful, the modes and in-depth capability that the RIO can get with the settings are fantastic. They also pretty much demand full attention to get the most out of them, which is difficult if you’re also trying to fly.
With only trainers and the F-14 being real contestants for multicrew aircraft in DCS, I don’t think we have enough depth to really determine how useful or not they are in a simulated environment. With the F-14, I think certain things only shine within certain simulation constraints, such as limited/no F10 info, limited/no AWACS, which would allow the RIO to shine in managing the radar, communications, and other aircraft.
6 Likes
It’s worth noting this too:
- During that time, I had no idea what I was doing other than basic CMS, as I setup my keybindings months ago.
- I spend alot of time flipping back to manuals and videos, as did Franze to try and help me (not during combat, of course).
- I don’t even know how to cold-start from the back - I jumped in once everything was ready.
Would consider doing that again though! It’s definitely worth it, as Franze mentioned in regards to the decreased workload up front, the radar and associated workloads become a lot more enjoyable when you don’t have to fly. Sounds strange right, to enjoy NOT flying - in a flight sim? Try it!
I will also continue my F111-like craze for a F-18D or F (Or a E/A-18G, we can dream right? Free country and all that!) as the potential to act as a proper combat trainer I think would be invaluable. Now to make it official…
Dual Seat Hornet!
Dual Seat Hornet!!
Dual Seat Hornet!!!
Dual Seat Hornet!!!!
Please! I’ll set aside another $120 & pre-order at full price.
4 Likes
This is from days ago and I am once again making the mistake of posting before getting up to date on the thread. With that said… When I open DCS I never once give a moment’s thought to modern warfare. What we do in DCS is “sandbox” a mix of technologies that are at best only partially rendered. To that we add the limitation of flying in an environment that is devoid of troops, civilians and any sort of command and control structure. So inserting modern military thinking into a game that is so separated from reality can only take us so far. The Ka50 and the A-10C are still, IMH(but uninformed)O, the most ideal platforms for the DCS world even though they may be terribly suited for warfare in 2019 and beyond.
I still wish that DCS had simply pretended that life never continued past 1990. As a Vietnam/Falklands/NATO v Warsaw Pact air war sim, it would have more realistically matched its own capabilities with the limited technologies of the time.
7 Likes
To this day I still pretend this is the case
7 Likes
I got the F-14 module strictly for RIO work. I like the idea of getting chauffeured around 
and doing the brainiak work. I did not have an interest in the module until @ENO said he wanted a RL RIO. Last week I watched a few Youtube videos of the popular recordings and declared myself a ready RIO.
We took off from Al Minhad in the Persian Gulf. Flew down to Palm Jebel and then up the Palm Jumeirah. I mentioned the keyhole in the Atlantis Hotel that we had to fly through -
We then took a right over the peninsula to Fujairah and located the CVN 74 Stennis. I was not really too clear on the RIO functions being this my first time in the jet and w/ a little bourbon to soften any hard landings I set the important switches to On and the knobs that would to Right.
We landed A-OK on the Stennis and I critiqued Eno on his approach and we were off to the Officers Club to celebrate our first flight.
The keyboard keys to go back and forth from Pilot to Rio are 1 and 2. I think maybe power is needed?? My next RIO training will be to get ILS, TACAN and Radio working. Really looking forward to the RIO seat!
10 Likes
RIO is a lot of fun, and once you get the hang of the systems it’s so hard to fly in the front seat with Jester. I keep thinking “Why doesn’t he do this…?” 
I know I prefer flying as RIO just because the systems management keeps me on my toes.
Regarding the keyboard keys, I recommend (at least in the RIO seat) remapping 1 and 2 to the keypad on the CAP, along with 3-0, +, -, Backspace, and Enter. This makes it a lot easier to input waypoints, as it’s much faster and you can look at the TID to make sure you’re entering them properly. Set the pilot/RIO seats to something like LSHIFT+1 and 2 instead.
5 Likes