506th IR Realism Unit
Recruiting => The Duty Desk => Topic started by: Dickerson on December 18, 2014, 12:29:52 AM
-
Hello,
First and foremost, I am a pilot at heart and as such I am really eager to talk to someone about becoming one after recruit training. My question though, is the use of the AFM a requirement for the pilots of the 506th. Furthermore, I am wondering what its like to be a pilot in the 506th. What kinds of tasks are you assigned with on ops? Are you also assigned for light CAS such as tasked with support of troops with the AH-6 air-frame or other air-frames.
I am just opening a thread for some talk for pilots to talk and share information.
Thanks,
-Dickerson
-
10 minutes of cumulative action, 120 minutes of circles... Its not for everyone but it suits those of us who have been around for a while. If you are looking for action and fun... aviation isn't for you. If you are looking to help those guys on the ground accomplish a task by any means necessary (to include flying circles for an hour and a half) then you will not be disappointed. We are a SUPPORTING asset and it is important to keep that in mind.
-
For your main question, no, AFM is not required and is a personal choice. Secondly, there are two sections, fixed wing and rotary. Fixed wing only fly the A-10's and provide CAS run. Rotary fly, as of now, the black hawk and the AH-6 providing insertions, extraction and CAS. I don't believe there's any opening in fixed wings at the moment, and applying for a pilot position requires the minimum rank of PFC.
-
Im looking to join after i finish recruit training and was wondering if you guys will start using the Apache? (another question for pilots)
-
I really appreciate the feedback WOC Wilde and 2d Lt Karr!
2d Lt Karr, I have around 1200 hours in ArmA II and III combined. Of those 1200 hours I would guess that 800 of those hours are flight time, 200 infantry combat, and 200 of mission editing. With that said, I am by no means an expert but I am proud of my abilities and work as a pilot. So yes, I have been around and I very much enjoy flying in a pattern for hours on end. There is nothing quite like the joy of flight to me.
WOC Wilde, thank you for answering me and providing me with useful information.
-
Im looking to join after i finish recruit training and was wondering if you guys will start using the Apache? (another question for pilots)
I think that's still being discussed, but as far as I know, we're not using it.
I really appreciate the feedback WOC Wilde and 2d Lt Karr!
2d Lt Karr, I have around 1200 hours in ArmA II and III combined. Of those 1200 hours I would guess that 800 of those hours are flight time, 200 infantry combat, and 200 of mission editing. With that said, I am by no means an expert but I am proud of my abilities and work as a pilot. So yes, I have been around and I very much enjoy flying in a pattern for hours on end. There is nothing quite like the joy of flight to me.
WOC Wilde, thank you for answering me and providing me with useful information.
I'm more than happy to help.
-
At least for rotary, Our ops consist of troop transport with the UH-60 Black hawk. Than we switch air frames to the MH-9 for light CAS Duties. We are multi-air frame qualified
-
I am thinking of signing up after the winter Standown and an apache program would be interesting to me as a desired duty and would really take pleasure in being a apache pilot for the 506 id you need one
-
I see your point, but apache would be too OP in my opinion. You have to remember that zeus / mcc operator has a big task making the mission interesting and fun for all. With too many assets, will infantry almost not be needed.
-
I see your point, but apache would be too OP in my opinion.
Everyone keeps saying this and I'm not sure why..... What exactly is "too OP" about the Apache? are you under the impression that air can just go around and kill everything they see? Because they can't. Any CAS authority comes down from the task force commander.
IMO we SHOULD be using the Apache. The AH-6's are pointless and just add to server lag with 4 of them flying around almost completely useless for 2 hours. Imo after the insert we should have 2 pilots in one blackhawk for re inserts and 2 in a Apache. Thats 2 less helicopters flying and another actual useful air asset in the AO. plus, as of now the A-10s are bugged and don't even make the mission 50% of the time.
-
its armed with 8 hellfire AGM missiles. a M230 HE machinegun. and the pilot gets 32 un-accurate free fire Hydra missiles which, if the mod makers are accurate against the vehicles the opposition in RHS us the apache as actually highly overpowered compared to other aircraft. The apache also could look really cool in some situations
-
The AH-6's are pointless and just add to server lag with 4 of them flying around almost completely useless for 2 hours.
This information is entirely incorrect.
-
its armed with 8 hellfire AA missiles. a M230 HE machinegun. and the pilot gets 32 un-accurate free fire Hydra missiles which, if the mod makers are accurate against the vehicles the opposition in RHS us the apache as actually highly overpowered compared to other aircraft. The apache also could look really cool in some situations
The AH-64 from RHS is armed with 8 Hellfire AGM missiles and no AIM-9s. The "Un-accurate" FFARs are accurate in the hands of a competent pilot. I know first hand cause I've done a strike on a non official mission for fun with guns and darts. Now the AH-6 while agile offers no protection and limited capabilities of what it can do. It can't even support other aviation assets properly as an escort or scout. The AH-64 can laser designate for the A-10s and can stand off at range and engage enemy armor and infantry. It can use the pop up method behind a hill, mountain, or other cover/concealment. The AH-6 has to come over the target exposing it to enemy fire and let's be honest the thing can't take a whole lot of damage and get the crew back safely. The only thing the AH-6 has is agility and that's laughable because the AH-64 can out run and out climb it. Not to mention the darts and guns on it can't do jack to anything other than light skinned vehicles and infantry. By that I mean they can't designate targets for other air assets to engage and destroy enemy forces and well let's be honest they can't escort a blackhawk and it's not what they are designed to do. I'm off to play golf and drink beer.
-
Everyone keeps saying this and I'm not sure why..... What exactly is "too OP" about the Apache? are you under the impression that air can just go around and kill everything they see? Because they can't. Any CAS authority comes down from the task force commander.
We are a light infantry based unit, not a MEU. The fact that we have this many supporting assets and how we balance them is what we should be discussing, not how we should add more. There's a fine balancing act between what works and is challenging, and what is fun for everyone.
I'm not sure if you were around long enough in the 15th to see the dozens of missions where 40 guys sat on a hill, while a Cobra hovered 2000 yards away and took out every single enemy contact. I'm sure it was fun for the pilots, but not for they guys on the ground. The inverse is also true, I've seen missions where pilots would float around and just do re-inserts for 2 hours because we had M1A1's that took care of all the armor (and more often than not, the infantry as well).
What we have now, albeit not perfect, is balanced. We have Anti-Light armor capabilities from the ground via Javelins and Bradleys, but most of our heavy AT comes from the A-10's or Little Birds. If these assets aren't being used, it's per the task force commander's direction. The Little Birds are weak, but they are balanced in that they can't hover over the AO for the entire operation. They give us what we need, but provide enough of a challenge to make their use realistic.
Simply put, a task force commander should be thinking "Is it safe for me to use this asset, or will it get shot down?", not how it's use is unfair for everyone else. The standup operation with Task Force Alpha was a perfect example of coordination and thoughtfulness between the task force commander and supporting assets. Not only were they used heavily, but the ground guys had a lot of fun too.
http://www.506thir.net/forums/index.php?topic=551.0
-
Not sure if I want to enter this discussion... but I have a few sentences for the forum... We can only shoot at what the ground asks us to shoot at. We are only as "OP" as you allow us to be. If you call a free fire area, we will kill everything, that is the only scenario where the Apache or any supporting asset for that matter is allowed to overwhelm the enemy with superior fire... I just want to say it again for it to sink in... we can only shoot at what ground asks us to shoot at.
-
We can only shoot at what ground asks us to shoot at.
-
We can only shoot at what ground asks us to shoot at.
Simply put, a task force commander should be thinking "Is it safe for me to use this asset, or will it get shot down?", not how it's use is unfair for everyone else.
-
To the original question. I think enough pilots have posted here to get an idea what an operation is like for them. To the second question, but, the 506th does not use Apaches.
To everyone else. You know how the unit works. If you want something, or have an idea pass it up your chain of command.
-
if its armed with AGM it would take 1 -2 shots to destroy a T-72. but before it blows up the t-72 will stay disabled for about 10 seconds. FFAR'S would disable both the T-72 tracks and/or the hull. M320 on the other hand you'd need to fire at least 200-400 rounds to take out a BMK-1 and that might count for the BMP and other IFV and APC's. but the Apache is built for taking out infantry and goats in Afghanistan and wasn't built to take out armor or even any vehicles. but still it would be fun andexiting to be able to have a AH-64 Apache for any means that its needed for and also as a desired duty option
-
Should a mod come out for the attack version of the UH-60, will the AH-6 be transferred to that?
-
We are a light infantry based unit, not a MEU. The fact that we have this many supporting assets and how we balance them is what we should be discussing, not how we should add more. There's a fine balancing act between what works and is challenging, and what is fun for everyone.
I'm not sure if you were around long enough in the 15th to see the dozens of missions where 40 guys sat on a hill, while a Cobra hovered 2000 yards away and took out every single enemy contact. I'm sure it was fun for the pilots, but not for they guys on the ground. The inverse is also true, I've seen missions where pilots would float around and just do re-inserts for 2 hours because we had M1A1's that took care of all the armor (and more often than not, the infantry as well).
What we have now, albeit not perfect, is balanced. We have Anti-Light armor capabilities from the ground via Javelins and Bradleys, but most of our heavy AT comes from the A-10's or Little Birds. If these assets aren't being used, it's per the task force commander's direction. The Little Birds are weak, but they are balanced in that they can't hover over the AO for the entire operation. They give us what we need, but provide enough of a challenge to make their use realistic.
Simply put, a task force commander should be thinking "Is it safe for me to use this asset, or will it get shot down?", not how it's use is unfair for everyone else. The standup operation with Task Force Alpha was a perfect example of coordination and thoughtfulness between the task force commander and supporting assets. Not only were they used heavily, but the ground guys had a lot of fun too.
This is all absolutely spot on.
The decision to not use Apaches was absolutely not an accident or oversight.
After many years of dealing with the above highlighted scenario, the decision to do away with the aircraft and vehicles that could absolutely demolish all enemy opposition on the map was made when standing up the 506th. No M1 Abrams, no Apaches. The Bradleys were supposed to be stood-up slowly in order to ascertain their strength, but with the unprecedented rapid growth of the unit they were all stood up at once. Even then, it was determined that one Bradley per task force was more than enough. The original intent was to possibly extend to two, but under the lead of 1LT Cook it quickly became apparent that one was enough for our purpose and intent.
A lot of people posting in here don't have the long-term experience of dealing with what works and what doesn't. It was made very clear when standing up the 506th that we are creating a light-infantry-centric experience. From the lowest rifleman to the Task Force Commander, the unit is supposed to be based around that experience. As TF Commander, I continuously see the statement, especially in this thread "We can only shoot at what ground asks us to shoot at.". 5+ years of experience has shown me that this is absolutely not true. This mantra can be preached over and over again until those preaching are blue in the face, but the reality is that requests from air assets come down to engage targets, and if they are denied, pilots get pissed. If they are authorized, ground guys get pissed because the gunships tear up the enemy assets. Then the MCC Controllers get pissed because their carefully laid-out infantry-based mission was mopped up in <1 min by an asset that is ridiculously powerful due to the nature of how terrain in ArmA is. And that is how it happens. It's not about "We can only shoot at what ground asks us to shoot at.", what it really is, and this is coming from experience, is "Air sends requests down to engage targets that they are observing and the TF Commander has no legitimate reason to deny the engagement; and has to keep in the back of his mind what the fallout will be if it is denied, so he authorizes the engagement and ground forces are unhappy."
Air and armor in ArmA reign supreme. Using a gunship that is low armor and vulnerable instead of one that is armored and extremely powerful is an intentional decision to curtail these issues. It's supposed to be a Blackhawk DAP instead of an AH-6 Littlebird, which would probably provide some extra small-arms protection, but we're working with what is available to us(and doesn't bog down the server with extra mods) and is extremely carefully balanced to ensure a positive experience for all individuals.
Simply put, a task force commander should be thinking "Is it safe for me to use this asset, or will it get shot down?", not how it's use is unfair for everyone else.
Next is the issue of having to tell personnel to intentionally not engage certain types of targets. Namely air and armor assets need to "leave enemy infantry alone in order to let the ground guys have some fun". This very issue is rotten at it's core and detracts from gameplay and immersion. An air or armor asset should not have to disregard viable targets. When the request is sent down from air saying "hey we see these guys and would like to engage them", it creates problems. The solution to this issue was to build a unit based around infantry and remove these obstacles. This way we don't have to tell anyone that there are targets that they simply aren't "allowed" to engage. It saves Task Force Leaders, ground forces, and pilots alike frustration and conflict and resentment that broods like a virus within the unit.
The constant, unrelentless badgering over things like this is not healthy for the long-term sanity of command staff. We are acutely aware of the issues and we do read the forums, so whenever a little snippy remark over something is made, it is noticed. Morale works both up and down.