0.7 question

markonymous · Post by **markonymous** » 2007-12-27 16:35

lock this thread i think its run its course.

Farks · Post by **Farks** » 2007-12-27 17:09

markonymous wrote:emp would stop it very effectivly though it would stop anything electronic. But the jamming device does work since it makes the radar unable to identify targets. And if they didnt work many more helicopters/airplanes would have been shot down during desert storm.

I haven't seen or heard about NNEMP weapons on helicopters. And I also think you are underesstimating the effectivnes of modern AA. You just don't go hide and then pop back up to destroy the AA unit. The reason to why more aircrafts wasn't shot down during Desert Storm is because Iraq had outdated stuff.

I'm not saying AA should or does hit their targets 100% of the time, but aircraft is defintly not overpowering AA.

But, like said, we should wait til we've tried it!

markonymous · Post by **markonymous** » 2007-12-27 17:31

Farks wrote:I haven't seen or heard about NNEMP weapons on helicopters. And I also think you are underesstimating the effectivnes of modern AA. You just don't go hide and then pop back up to destroy the AA unit. The reason to why more aircrafts wasn't shot down during Desert Storm is because Iraq had outdated stuff.

I'm not saying AA should or does hit their targets 100% of the time, but aircraft is defintly not overpowering AA.

But, like said, we should wait til we've tried it!

you are also underestimating the power of modern jamming devices. but ye lets just stop this nonsens and wait until we have played it.

Waaah_Wah · Post by **Waaah_Wah** » 2007-12-27 22:35

Ooookay

Im really happy after seeing that you can be able to kill a tank from 1200 meters in 0.7. I am pulling back everything i've said about the Chopters vs Tanks with this new system

Viper5 · Post by **Viper5** » 2007-12-27 22:37

Farks wrote: The reason to why more aircrafts wasn't shot down during Desert Storm is because Iraq had outdated stuff.
r targets 100% of the time, but aircraft is defintly not overpowering AA.

But, like said, we should wait til we've tried it!

Umm no? Baghdad had one of the best Air Defense Infrastructures in the world, both in 1991 and 2003. Needless to say, that is no longer.

Hotrod525 · Post by **Hotrod525** » 2007-12-28 09:10

[quote=""'[R-DEV"]Spearhead;560137']As for the missiles. The Laser Guided mode (slot 3) has zoom capability like the gun and handles much like the TOW in vBF2. This simulates the continuous painting a hellfire missile would use in LOBL (Lock-on before launch) mode.

(Since the view in the chopper is not stabilized for the gunner as it is in reality, it will be a little more challenging to use while on the move)

The Laser Target mode will lock on any laser targets that are not attached to a friendly vehicle. They can be set by anyone using a SOFLAM. Also the commander can place one using the map. (Not recommended for missiles due to limited precision) The laser target can also be placed by the gunner himself or by a co-pilot in a small attack helicopter. Targeting on the move or targeting a moving target from the helicopter are VERY hard (engine restrictions) thus this mode is preferable if someone else provides the target or to place a target for a bomber from a helicopter.

As for the release: I finished and published the manual. So we are obviously not adding anything new. I'd expect 0.7 to be in final test phases due to be released as soon as it is deemed free of any problems we don't want you to have. Can't really tell you more than what you already should be able to realize.[/quote]

I'm flying in the cloud in kashan, THATS the things i need

now my gunner will be able to take out tankt and AAV from 700 M altitude

[quote="markonymous""]emp would stop it very effectivly though it would stop anything electronic. But the jamming device does work since it makes the radar unable to identify targets. And if they didnt work many more helicopters/airplanes would have been shot down during desert storm.[/quote]

Most of the "Conventional Army" Armored vehicule where N.B.C. Protected... so EMP have no effects on them*.

*Nuclear explosion made an E.M.P...

$kelet0r · Post by **$kelet0r** » 2007-12-28 21:56

markonymous wrote:you are also underestimating the power of modern jamming devices. but ye lets just stop this nonsens and wait until we have played it.

you have the rosiest tinted view of modern attack helicopters - mostly misguided

CAS_117 · Post by **CAS_117** » 2007-12-28 22:27

$kelet0r wrote:you have the rosiest tinted view of modern attack helicopters - mostly misguided

Well as good as SAM's are, AG missiles have a longer range and are hitting slower, bigger targets. Thats reality. But due to SAM's not functioning in 0.6, even the antiquated TV system was effective.

Silvarius2000 · Post by **Silvarius2000** » 2007-12-29 06:08

Markonymous I'm afraid I'd have to correct something. You are semi right regarding Modern Attack Helicopters possesing jamming equipment but you left out what spectrum.

I'm suspecting you're confusing the issue between passive jammers and active jammers for radars. You see AFAIK the Longbow has IR jammers which only works against Infrared trackers. MANPADS only rely on Infrared. ANd if you read the news you'd know this isnt foolproof either.

Before I go onto radar I need to explain radar jamming. Radar jamming literally implies flooding the target (yes its directed) AA with powerful electric currents (Like an active radar) to the point where the AA operator gets only white static and cant track targets. Obviously some AA emplacements are able to 'blot' out the blur depending on its strength therefore requiring a dedicated Electronic Warfare aircraft/heli/vehicle.

Radar tracking missiles from larger more static AA defences such as S-300 and such use radar tracking. That F-16 that got shot down in serbia? The AA operator fired his missle before flashing his radar and halfway through he zapped his radar up giving insufficient time to react as the pilot didnt see the launch flare.

And though the F-16, F-18, F15 series and doubtless the newer fighters would have jammers they are inadequate against those I mentioned above.

So. My conclusion is I think helicopters are supposed to be eaten up like cookies against static AA emplacements. Thats why they go through all that trouble training for NOE flying and popup targets and awesome Longbow radar stuff

Signing out,

Hotrod525 · Post by **Hotrod525** » 2007-12-29 11:36

Silvarius2000 wrote:Markonymous I'm afraid I'd have to correct something. You are semi right regarding Modern Attack Helicopters possesing jamming equipment but you left out what spectrum.

I'm suspecting you're confusing the issue between passive jammers and active jammers for radars. You see AFAIK the Longbow has IR jammers which only works against Infrared trackers. MANPADS only rely on Infrared. ANd if you read the news you'd know this isnt foolproof either.

Before I go onto radar I need to explain radar jamming. Radar jamming literally implies flooding the target (yes its directed) AA with powerful electric currents (Like an active radar) to the point where the AA operator gets only white static and cant track targets. Obviously some AA emplacements are able to 'blot' out the blur depending on its strength therefore requiring a dedicated Electronic Warfare aircraft/heli/vehicle.

Radar tracking missiles from larger more static AA defences such as S-300 and such use radar tracking. That F-16 that got shot down in serbia? The AA operator fired his missle before flashing his radar and halfway through he zapped his radar up giving insufficient time to react as the pilot didnt see the launch flare.

And though the F-16, F-18, F15 series and doubtless the newer fighters would have jammers they are inadequate against those I mentioned above.

So. My conclusion is I think helicopters are supposed to be eaten up like cookies against static AA emplacements. Thats why they go through all that trouble training for NOE flying and popup targets and awesome Longbow radar stuff

Signing out,

Yeah Anti Aircraft Missile system are very deadly to all aircraft, espescialy helicoptere, but IRL, they have Satelites, UAV, Radar and FLIR to detect AAV... so they can fire at it whitout ever seen it close...

mammikoura · Post by **mammikoura** » 2007-12-29 11:54

Hotrod525 wrote:Yeah Anti Aircraft Missile system are very deadly to all aircraft, espescialy helicoptere, but IRL, they have Satelites, UAV, Radar and FLIR to detect AAV... so they can fire at it whitout ever seen it close...

so are you saying that IRL choppers can take out AAV's by attacking from long range?

Not an expert on these things but I'd guess the range of modern anti-air systems is something like 10x more than a hellfires range.

even jets have huge difficulties against anti-air systems so I'd imagine that a modern anti-air system would be an unbeatable foe for a helicopter.

Mora · Post by **Mora** » 2007-12-29 13:48

if they have a exact location of an AAV they just send a nice package from a long distance even if they have no visual.. call in a air strike or something GPSGB.. they would have something to take it out without getting killed

CAS_117 · Post by **CAS_117** » 2007-12-29 14:10

Radars have a minimum altitude. At this altitude the emmisions are scattered and reflected by terrain, or water. A group of AH-64's fired the opening shots in 1991, the target being an Iraqi radar site.

markonymous · Post by **markonymous** » 2007-12-29 14:55

Ok how about this thread gets locked. No point in discussing this further.

Sabre_tooth_tigger · Post by **Sabre_tooth_tigger** » 2007-12-29 15:58

I dont think bf2 caters for this degree of detail much like alot of things. Better to focus on balanced gameplay then being pedantic

Post by **JS.Fortnight.A** » 2007-12-29 18:06

@markonymous

In regards to your first question about the realism of a tank destroying a chopper.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m830a1.htm

*Thread Closed at Poster's Request*