KA-52 Alligator Released

[franze 196]

A few points I'd like to make (and I'm no expert here, these are my observations):

- The Ka-50/52 series are very complex aircraft. They are not simple nor any less advanced than the AH-64 or other western helicopters. The Ka-50 relies on a advanced flight computer to assist the pilot in flying the aircraft, although I cannot say for the Ka-52 as it has the additional crew member.

- The Hokum and Alligator would be no less maintenance happy than a AH-64. Counter rotating systems aren't as simple as you might think; more effecient I would say, but not simple. Comparing these aircraft to a simple helicopter, such as a UH-1 or AH-1, the Ka-50/52 have a lot more capabilities with a lower readiness rate.

- The Ka-50/52 are very fast helicopters; I don't know what the Russian doctrine is, but the west relies upon the ability to hide and move around slowly rather than quickly. A helicopter wont win a speed match against a modern jet aircraft, no matter how hard it tries, so I've always found it puzzling that the Russian attack helicopters strive for a high speed rate. Perhaps more to do with unguided weapon runs?

- The Ka-50 has one very nasty flaw: high pilot fatigue. I've heard that the Ka-52 was supposed to allieviate this shortcoming, but I have no proof of that whatsoever.

Looking at these points, I believe that the Ka-50/52 was designed as a fast helicopter designed to do a lot of things, and one of them would have to be to shoot down other helicopters. But that becomes more of a question of situation and pilots rather than aircraft.

Quote[/b] ]Soviets/Russians never used media for good propoganda purposes.

I don't know where you heard that. The Soviets were quite hyped on propoganda, especially the media. It was state controlled, afterall. For modern Russia, I don't think I could say.

Quote[/b] ]Well the vikhr supersonic anti tank missile has been tested and has engaged air targets sucessfully. it can also be armed with... i think theyre called iglaa theyre aa. AH-64 carries stingers doesnt it are these the same as the manpad stingers or are they more sophisticated??

The AT-9 Ataka and AT-16 Vikhr are radio command guided in the initial phase, and laser beam riding afterwards. Although I've no doubt its possible to destroy an enemy air target with such a weapon, the task of holding a laser beam onto a maneuvering aircraft (short of a huge transport) is a monumental task with a very low hit probability. Don't forget these weapons can only barely match the speeds of many aircraft. The Ka-50/52 can mount Igla (you were correct) missiles as well as R-60 Aphid and R-73 Archer AAMs. The AH-64 can carry Stingers (correct again), Starstreaks or AIM-9s. It has never fired any of these AAMs in anger.

Re, Missile tech -

You have to be careful where you get missile information from, as I found out, because you'll pretty much have to join a missile development team to find out what a system is really capable of. That said, I believe the Russians have two very nice AAMs availible, one is the R-77 Adder, the other is the R-73 Archer. I don't really count the R-27 because it's still a SAR missile system in a day of fire and forget systems.

On topic:

Very nice looking chopper, streamlined and uniform (unlike a lot of mine) with limits well set. The rotor wash is a bit heavy though, and IMO should either be thinned out or user defined. Theres a slight inaccuracy in that Iglas can't be mounted as they are on the addon, the aircraft only has the four pylons for weapons. Flares would be better left automatic. Cannon sounds too weak, could use some beefing up on it's part. Cannon ammo is also too much; should be 240 AP and 230 HE. Gun also bursts in 10 to 20 rounds. Ejection method is done exceptionally well, this is a feature that will definately save a lot of hides in event of helicopter failure. The fact that both pilots eject if either crew member chooses to eject is also quite helpful as well, since this introduces a safety measure if either crew member notices a threat that the other does not.

Some additional armaments would definately be a plus here; 12 Vikhr and 40 S-8 is pretty reliable, but other options like gunpods or heavier S-13 rockets would be nice to choose from, as well as different rocket warhead types. It would also be nice to load up a few R-73s to make fast movers think twice.

On the whole, this should prove a good counterpart to the already exsisting DKM Mi-28s, although I don't see it fully pushing the Mi-28s out of business just yet. Nonetheless, a very good aircraft with a few shorcomings but a whole lot better than that junky BIS V-80.

[max power 21]

Thanks for the correction, AKD.

I found this on FAS.org

>>>>>>>>>>

External stores are mounted on underwing external hardpoints. Each wing has two hardpoints for a total of four stations. A typical mix for targeting armor formations is 12x AT-16 ATGMs, 500x 30-mm cannon rounds, and 2x 20-round pods of 80-mm folding fin unguided rockets. The 30-mm cannon is the same as on the BMP-2. It also carries guided air-to-air missiles IGLA-V (Needle C), already extensively tested and sold to buyers abroad. The Shark's avionics is largely in line with what is the norm for one-seater fighters and ground attack jets. It's most remarkable feature is a remote targeting system with a capability to provide for a sudden deadly attack from a distance that rules out direct visual contact with the target. The firing computer will turn the aircraft to keep the gun on target. It is equipped with downlink to provide information from the battlefield. The targeting and control system and weaponry enable accurate target engagement at ranges of up to 10km.

The KA-50 features unique maneuvrability and operating characteristics due to the contra-rotating co-axial rotors. The coaxial counter-rotating rotor system negates the need for a tail rotor and its drive system. Because of this, this aircraft is unaffected by wind strength and direction, has an unlimited hovering turn rate, and gives a smaller profile and acoustic signature, while allowing a 10-15% greater power margin. The HOKUM is fully aerobatic. It can perform loops, roll, and “the funnelâ€, where the aircraft will maintain a concentrated point of fire while flying circles of varying altitude, elevation, and airspeed around the target.

>>>>>>>>>>

Cool stuff.

[akd 0]

Quote[/b] ]The Ka-50/52 can mount Igla (you were correct) missiles as well as R-60 Aphid and R-73 Archer AAMs. The AH-64 can carry Stingers (correct again), Starstreaks or AIM-9s. It has never fired any of these AAMs in anger.

Neither the Apache nor the Hokum are really operationally capable of using AAMs beyond the Stinger/Iglas. With the Hokum, the Aphid/Archer has never been fired in war or peace. I'm not certain about the Apache's record for testing with Sidewinders, but I don't believe they have deployed them operationally either.

A lot of confusion is being sowed here about superiority/inferiority regarding avionics/electronics/etc. What is not debatable is capabilities. The Ka-50 is not night/all-weather combat capable. The Apache Longbow is. Thus they can not be considered equal in capabilities. Comparing to the Ka-52 is meaningless. It's not an operational rotorcraft. Compare the RAH-66 and the Ka-52 if you like.

Quote[/b] ]It's most remarkable feature is a remote targeting system with a capability to provide for a sudden deadly attack from a distance that rules out direct visual contact with the target. The firing computer will turn the aircraft to keep the gun on target. It is equipped with downlink to provide information from the battlefield. The targeting and control system and weaponry enable accurate target engagement at ranges of up to 10km.

The Ka-50's optical suite is excellent. Same as used on the Su-25T. But it is, nonetheless, a daylight optical system.

[max power 21]

A lot of confusion is being sowed here about superiority/inferiority regarding avionics/electronics/etc. What is not debatable is capabilities. The Ka-50 is not night/all-weather combat capable. The Apache Longbow is. Thus they can not be considered equal in capabilities. Comparing to the Ka-52 is meaningless. It's not an operational rotorcraft. Compare the RAH-66 and the Ka-52 if you like.

The Ka-50's optical suite is excellent. Same as used on the Su-25T. But it is, nonetheless, a daylight optical system.

The federation of American Scientists would dispute those claims.

>>>>>>>>>>

# The HOKUM uses a low-light level TV or thermal sighting, a laser range-finder (10 km), FLIR, air data sensor, and digital data-link which interface with a fire control com-puter, an autopilot, a helmet sighting system and HUD for target location, acquisition, designation, and firing. Night/Weather Capabilities:

# This aircraft’s avionics package ensuring a full day/night, all weather capability. If it is to be employed at night in an attack role, it must be fitted with a night targeting pod. This pod includes a FLIR, a millimeter wave radar, and an electro-optical sight takes up one of the underwing pylons. The Ka-50N, and Ka-52 are capable of performing attack missions in day/night, and all-weather conditions.

# The French companies Thomson-CSF, and Sextant Avionique offer nav/attack systems, which can be fitted to export variants.

>>>>>>>>>>

[franze 196]

FAS is good for general information, but not unparalled accuracy. If you're looking for detailed information on the Ka-50, go here.

Quote[/b] ]Neither the Apache nor the Hokum are really operationally capable of using AAMs beyond the Stinger/Iglas. With the Hokum, the Aphid/Archer has never been fired in war or peace. I'm not certain about the Apache's record for testing with Sidewinders, but I don't believe they have deployed them operationally either.

"Operationally capable" can mean a lot of things. It's not exactly rocket science to jury rig a modification up to use a foreign weapon/system on a aircraft (see Taiwan's first F-86s equipped with Sidewinders - a rocket fuse box rigged to missile rails bolted onto the wings), and because of that, theres nothing that says someone won't or can't use a weapon on an aircraft. I believe this becomes especially true with IR AAMs, as all they need to acquire is a heat source. The Apache was tested with both the Sidearm and Sidewinder missiles in the late 80s, but as you know, never used in war before. And really, what would be the point? I believe primarily it's just a extra feature for export.

Quote[/b] ]A lot of confusion is being sowed here about superiority/inferiority regarding avionics/electronics/etc. What is not debatable is capabilities. The Ka-50 is not night/all-weather combat capable. The Apache Longbow is. Thus they can not be considered equal in capabilities. Comparing to the Ka-52 is meaningless. It's not an operational rotorcraft. Compare the RAH-66 and the Ka-52 if you like.

What needs to be pointed out here, it may or may not be all weather, but day or night is only a problem if you're looking to guide complex missile systems. How many of those does the Ka-50 (or is supposed to) mount? I can only think of the AT-9 and AT-16. It isn't rocket science (pardon the pun) to use NVGs and carry a couple pods of rockets at night to fill a support role. Also, the Ka-50/52 may (or may not) recieve a mast mounted radar later in development. Additionally, there is a LLTV in the chin mounted turret, Shkval-V.

[akd 0]

Quote[/b] ]Neither the Apache nor the Hokum are really operationally capable of using AAMs beyond the Stinger/Iglas. With the Hokum, the Aphid/Archer has never been fired in war or peace. I'm not certain about the Apache's record for testing with Sidewinders, but I don't believe they have deployed them operationally either.

"Operationally capable" can mean a lot of things. It's not exactly rocket science to jury rig a modification up to use a foreign weapon/system on a aircraft (see Taiwan's first F-86s equipped with Sidewinders - a rocket fuse box rigged to missile rails bolted onto the wings), and because of that, theres nothing that says someone won't or can't use a weapon on an aircraft. I believe this becomes especially true with IR AAMs, as all they need to acquire is a heat source. The Apache was tested with both the Sidearm and Sidewinder missiles in the late 80s, but as you know, never used in war before. And really, what would be the point? I believe primarily it's just a extra feature for export.

Quote[/b] ]A lot of confusion is being sowed here about superiority/inferiority regarding avionics/electronics/etc. What is not debatable is capabilities. The Ka-50 is not night/all-weather combat capable. The Apache Longbow is. Thus they can not be considered equal in capabilities. Comparing to the Ka-52 is meaningless. It's not an operational rotorcraft. Compare the RAH-66 and the Ka-52 if you like.

What needs to be pointed out here, it may or may not be all weather, but day or night is only a problem if you're looking to guide complex missile systems. How many of those does the Ka-50 (or is supposed to) mount? I can only think of the AT-9 and AT-16. It isn't rocket science (pardon the pun) to use NVGs and carry a couple pods of rockets at night to fill a support role. Also, the Ka-50/52 may (or may not) recieve a mast mounted radar later in development. Additionally, there is a LLTV in the chin mounted turret, Shkval-V.

All beside the point. Both Apache and Hokum are "capable" of using these systems but neither do for a varity of reasons.

Regarding the Shkval-V, it is a daylight optical and laser package, as used on the Su-25T/Su-39. Like the Frogfoot, the Ka-50 requires a supplemetary LLTV sensor package for nighttime targeting. The Frogfoot can carry the Mercury LLTV pod for this. The answer for the Ka-50 is the Ka-50N, which is not the operational Ka-50. The Hokum's weapons are tied to the Shkval-V system, thus its ability for nighttime operations is restricted. Hokum is approved for nighttime, good weather navigation with NVGs, not combat.

That is why the Ka-50 is a daytime close-support helicopter. That is its present capability.

If you'd really like to know more about the Black Shark, drop by the Lock On forums. Eagle Dynamics, a Russian dev company, are developing a high-fidelity Ka-50 simulation: www.lockon.ru

[max power 21]

If you'd really like to know more about the Black Shark, drop by the Lock On forums. Eagle Dynamics, a Russian dev company, are developing a high-fidelity Ka-50 simulation: www.lockon.ru

That's the coolest thing I've ever heard!!!!

[STACKERr 0]

Here is a documental film about Kamov helicopters.

Link(280 MB. Rus).

[joker18 0]

what you say about the r-27 isnt correct. the missile was builded in following configurations:

R-27R (semi active)

R-27ER (extended range semiactive homing)

R-27I (infrared homing)

R-27EI (extended range IR- homing)

R-27?? (active homing missel)

source: german airforce(luftwaffe) mig-29 fulcrum-g squadron

[.COMmunist 0]

This is a very good discussion indeed. However I wanted to ask you about the OFP Ka-52. Did anyone noticed how hard it is to shoot him down? It took 8 Stingers from the ground. 3 Cobras combine attack ( lost 2 Cobras in the process ). 2 AIM54 from F-14. I believe that this is too much.

[wolfbite 8]

Thi is turning into world war 3. Well theres an easy way to sort this out... I we all put our pocket money money together and buy one of each... then we pick out of a hat who flies what and start them off at the end of a road yeah.

Yeah i know what you mean about tough to shoot down anyone doing a ka-50?? all the ones currently out are just a bit.... erm crap and ugly.... And why does everyone forget arctic camo on their choppers??

[xnodunitx 0]

-This is a very good discussion indeed. However I wanted to ask you about the OFP Ka-52. Did anyone noticed how hard it is to shoot him down? It took 8 Stingers from the ground. 3 Cobras combine attack ( lost 2 Cobras in the process ). 2 AIM54 from F-14. I believe that this is too much.-

Due to armor or countermeasures?

edit- whoops,didn't hit the quote button.

[franze 196]

Quote[/b] ]

All beside the point. Both Apache and Hokum are "capable" of using these systems but neither do for a varity of reasons.

No, I think you're missing the point. Have you seen the OH-58D's mounting a Russian 57mm rocket pod? It isn't even qualified to use these M261 19 shot pods.

Please don't mistake my point of view with "will use at all times" or "always qualified"; but you know as well as everyone else, war has no rules. If necessary, somebody will fly a Ka-50/52 at night even if it has no such systems for night flying (outside of NVGs). Also, to clarify, the Ka-52 has a few different sensor system over the regular Ka-50, or so they claim anyways. See this photo for more details.

Quote[/b] ]If you'd really like to know more about the Black Shark, drop by the Lock On forums. Eagle Dynamics, a Russian dev company, are developing a high-fidelity Ka-50 simulation: www.lockon.ru

I'm looking forward to that one, but not the massive upgrades required to run it.  

Given Eagle Dynamics' lust for realism, I don't doubt they'll probably have one of the best Ka-50 simulators on the market, but unfortunately I don't think they'll get a whole lot of attention outside of Russia.

Quote[/b] ]

what you say about the r-27 isnt correct. the missile was builded in following configurations:

R-27R (semi active)

R-27ER (extended range semiactive homing)

R-27I (infrared homing)

R-27EI (extended range IR- homing)

R-27?? (active homing missel)

All R-27 missiles require constant guidance from the firing aircraft until the terminal phase. The last one, R-27AE, has not been accepted into service.

Quote[/b] ]

This is a very good discussion indeed. However I wanted to ask you about the OFP Ka-52. Did anyone noticed how hard it is to shoot him down? It took 8 Stingers from the ground. 3 Cobras combine attack ( lost 2 Cobras in the process ). 2 AIM54 from F-14. I believe that this is too much.

It seems pretty durable, but I think thats probably a good thing; it's likely to attract a lot of attention from numerous western aircraft.

Quote[/b] ]

Thi is turning into world war 3. Well theres an easy way to sort this out... I we all put our pocket money money together and buy one of each... then we pick out of a hat who flies what and start them off at the end of a road yeah.

Dibs on the Ka-50.  

Quote[/b] ]

anyone doing a ka-50?? all the ones currently out are just a bit.... erm crap and ugly.... And why does everyone forget arctic camo on their choppers??

There was Hawk's modified BIS V-80 that came in winter I think. I tried both the Ka-50 and the Ka-52 but the landing gear and cockpit are difficult to make.

[.COMmunist 0]

-This is a very good discussion indeed. However I wanted to ask you about the OFP Ka-52. Did anyone noticed how hard it is to shoot him down? It took 8 Stingers from the ground. 3 Cobras combine attack ( lost 2 Cobras in the process ). 2 AIM54 from F-14. I believe that this is too much.-

Due to armor or countermeasures?

edit- whoops,didn't hit the quote button.

Actually both armor and counter measures. Stingers are almost useless due to counter measures. But I don't have a problem with that, it might be possible. But TWO Aim-54's from F-14! Bit too much if you ask me.

About Ka-52 night capabilities. Seems that every resource on the web indicates that Ka-52 IS night capable platform. To think that if you put NVG's on, you become night capable automaticaly is silly. Even with the best ANIS-9 goggles you can see 350 yards on the clear night. Not that much for helicopter operations. I think there is more to it then just night vision. They use all sorts of night and thermal sensors now that can easily be installed on almost any platform. I sell night and thermal equipment for living and I tell you there is not much to it. If the Russians are offering upgrade programs for even Mig-21, there got to be a way that their 21st century helicopter is night capable. Another story that some of the western "experts" don't like it, it is just another story. But assuming the if it is not American, than it is shit is kind of strange. I am not pointing fingers, just keep running into that attitude very often on military forums. Unfortunately there is not enough information available on the web and so we all have to guess. When ppl starting to guess, our own biased opinions start to surface. I am not 100% sure if the Ka-52 is night capable, but so far I can't find sources that prove otherwise. So, I have to assume it is night capable. Once in the while you see some website or forum member claiming that it is not, but it could be just an opinion. Who knows?

[akd 0]

No, I think you're missing the point. Have you seen the OH-58D's mounting a Russian 57mm rocket pod? It isn't even qualified to use these M261 19 shot pods.

A rocket pod is not a AIM-9 or a R-73.

Quote[/b] ]Please don't mistake my point of view with "will use at all times" or "always qualified"; but you know as well as everyone else, war has no rules. If necessary, somebody will fly a Ka-50/52 at night even if it has no such systems for night flying (outside of NVGs). Also, to clarify, the Ka-52 has a few different sensor system over the regular Ka-50, or so they claim anyways. See this photo for more details.

Ka-52 is not a Ka-50. They are two completely different weapon systems. One of them is in service and is not capable of nighttime/all-weather combat (no matter what fantasies people might have about improvising things in a video game that would lead to unacceptable pilot deaths and friendly fire incidents in real life). The Ka-52 is potentially-capable of nighttime operations, even bad weather with the radar system, no doubt it has been tested in such conditions, but it is not an operational aircraft. JSF is capable of a lot of neat things, but this doesn't make F-16s capable of the same just because of proximity. Once and for all, the Ka-50 and the Ka-52 are not the same weapons system. Talking about them as such causes all sorts of unnecessary confusion and disinformation.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]If you'd really like to know more about the Black Shark, drop by the Lock On forums. Eagle Dynamics, a Russian dev company, are developing a high-fidelity Ka-50 simulation: www.lockon.ru

I'm looking forward to that one, but not the massive upgrades required to run it.  

Me neither, and OFP is a better environment for helicopter operations anyways. If only the two could come together in helo bliss.

[wolfbite 8]

Ka-52 is definately all weather/nightime capable

Ka-50 im pretty sure it is Ka-50n deffinately is

im not sure that you can say lock on is a better platform than a specifically designed game.. lock ons flight dynamics are.. lacking.. you cant use different sensors flight models are wrong. Lets hope they improve aircraft dynamics in next gen. That would be an idea. they should have different aquisition modeled e.g air to ground, air to air, sonar, lltv, flir. Realistic countermeasure ecm chaff flares etc more realistic .. well just general flight. And seing osprey and jsf are in it im sure theyre doing a descent vtol system for next gen.... so i have suspicion that some more of these may come true. maybe next gen will be heaven

[akd 0]

Ka-52 is definately all weather/nightime capable

Ka-50 im pretty sure it is Ka-50n deffinately is

Operational Ka-50 is not. I'll say nothing further until someone produces a reliable document stating otherwise.

Quote[/b] ]im not sure that you can say lock on is a better platform than a specifically designed game.. lock ons flight dynamics are.. lacking.. you cant use different sensors flight models are wrong. Lets hope they improve aircraft dynamics in next gen. That would be an idea. they should have different aquisition modeled e.g air to ground, air to air, sonar, lltv, flir. Realistic countermeasure ecm chaff flares etc more realistic .. well just general flight. And seing osprey and jsf are in it im sure theyre doing a descent vtol system for next gen.... so i have suspicion that some more of these may come true. maybe next gen will be heaven  

Like the Su-25T, Eagle Dynamic's Black Shark will have an Advanced Flight Model, which is pretty much the bleeding edge in technology for consumer combat sims. However, the Lock On environment is a bit stale for helicopters; no active infantry, object detail at very low level, etc. A sim dedicated to the Ka-50 alone would provide a better environment, but there is no limitation on the flight model. It will be as close to real as possible.

[miles teg 1]

Yeah I know for certain that the KA-50 is in operation because I saw a Chechnyan Mujahadin propaganda video in which it showed two KA-50's flying below them in a valley hunting for them.  Also in the book, "My Jihad" if I remember correctly the author talks about shooting one down.  Whether this is bullshit I don't know.    

But for certain they are operational.  The KA-52, perhaps not.  But from a distance sometimes they are hard to tell apart.  

Sadly it may end up as a export-only helicopter.  However until then it won't stop me from making missions with this bad boy.  This has to be one of the BEST helicopter addons made for OFP.  I LOVE the animated pilot/copilot movements as they are starting up the engine and shutting it down.  Thats the first time I've seen something like that.  The cockpit interior is just superb as are all the voice sounds and engine sounds.  All of that definitely adds alot of atmosphere to the game while flying this gunship.  

Overall I love it!!!  Fantastic job all of you who took part in making it.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

Like I said, two Ka-50s were sent to Chechnya for "operational testing." Ka-52s? None.

Well excuse me for stating my observations. Unlike you I don't claim to be all knowing. Who are you? Are you Russian military. Do yo work for the design bureau who makes the KA-50 and KA-52? If not then quit trying to act as if you are all knowing about such issues. Lock-On.com or whatever its called is not the be-all, end-all source of information on aircraft just because it has a bunch of flight simulator enthusiasts on there.

Military forces all over the world do secret operations of new equipment all the time. IFor example, if it hadn't been for video photage of the TOS-1 fuel-air artillery in action in Chechnya, their would have been no reputable source of public information that indeed it was being used.

At any rate, all I was doing in my post was just stating my observations about that video. Excuse me if tried to support your opinion with something more concrete. I would have posted a link to the video but unfortunately the Chechnya mujahadin propaganda site it was on is long gone now it seems.

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[franze 196]

Quote[/b] ]

A rocket pod is not a AIM-9 or a R-73.

The CNAF recieved a handful of AIM-9Bs in the mid-50s, without aircraft that could use them. At the time, the CNAF primarly had F-86F fighters, none of which were qualified to use AIM-9s. US Navy personel agreed to make a few launch rails and systems for their AIM-9s by using rocket rails and parts for which the aircraft was compatible with, and proved remarkably successful. The CNAF used these quite successfully until they were able to upgrade to better aircraft.

I don't know if the R-73 is at all similar to the AIM-9, but since it is a IR guided weapon like the AIM-9, I assume using a similar method (or in this case, a software upgrade), someone could mount the missile on the helicopter. And since we've already said its in testing phase, and given the R-73 is a newer missile availible, it'd be silly not to have it availible, now or later, for use on the helicopter. But I think those guys would probably just use gunpods instead.

(Try this sometime in LOMAC - use a MiG-29 and R-73, switch to HMD mode, and move the circle onto an enemy aircraft within range (preferrably tail-on) - the missile will lock on without you needing to bracket the target.)

Quote[/b] ]

Ka-52 is not a Ka-50....

Agreed. However, there is absolutely nothing that says a pilot can't go out in combat at night using the platform. Let's not forget that 60 years ago, they didn't even have NVGs. Yes, yes, yes, I know its risky business, with a chance of hitting friendly units, but there is still absolutely nothing that prohibits the aircraft from operating at night. A UH-60A doesn't have any special nighttime equipment (outside of NVGs), yet they still operate them at night if necessary.

Quote[/b] ]

Me neither, and OFP is a better environment for helicopter operations anyways. If only the two could come together in helo bliss.

The flight dynamics alone would be worth it, but elsewhere I think LOMAC comes short for helicopter operations.

Quote[/b] ]

Operational Ka-50 is not. I'll say nothing further until someone produces a reliable document stating otherwise.

Despite what I say, I don't think I'd be crazy enough to try it either.

[akd 0]

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

A rocket pod is not a AIM-9 or a R-73.

The CNAF recieved a handful of AIM-9Bs in the mid-50s, without aircraft that could use them. At the time, the CNAF primarly had F-86F fighters, none of which were qualified to use AIM-9s. US Navy personel agreed to make a few launch rails and systems for their AIM-9s by using rocket rails and parts for which the aircraft was compatible with, and proved remarkably successful. The CNAF used these quite successfully until they were able to upgrade to better aircraft.

Cool. How many enemy aircraft did they shoot down with those Sidewinders? just kidding.

Quote[/b] ]I don't know if the R-73 is at all similar to the AIM-9, but since it is a IR guided weapon like the AIM-9, I assume using a similar method (or in this case, a software upgrade), someone could mount the missile on the helicopter. And since we've already said its in testing phase, and given the R-73 is a newer missile availible, it'd be silly not to have it availible, now or later, for use on the helicopter. But I think those guys would probably just use gunpods instead.

(Try this sometime in LOMAC - use a MiG-29 and R-73, switch to HMD mode, and move the circle onto an enemy aircraft within range (preferrably tail-on) - the missile will lock on without you needing to bracket the target.)

Clearly there is a misunderstanding here. My point is that neither the Russian or U.S. military see equipping attack helicopters with high performance AAMs as being desirable or useful (to the point in where the Russians have not even tested them). The low-altitude and low-speed of a helicopter significantly degrades the effectiveness of a high-performance AAM launched from it, to the point where the use of it to defend against a high performance aircraft is negated. The only likely air opponent of a helicopter is another helicopter and the current assesment is that MANPAD SAMs are just as effective in this role while weighing much less and requiring less system integration. While Sidewinders and Archers can use their own guidance seekers to acquire targets as you pointed with LOMAC, this is not particularly effective, especially if the aircraft doing so is at a performance disadvantage to its opponent. Furthermore, current laser-guided weapons are more than capable of attacking an opposing aircraft, so the practicality of even Stingers or Iglas is questionable.

Quote[/b] ]

Quote[/b] ]

Ka-52 is not a Ka-50....

Agreed. However, there is absolutely nothing that says a pilot can't go out in combat at night using the platform. Let's not forget that 60 years ago, they didn't even have NVGs. Yes, yes, yes, I know its risky business, with a chance of hitting friendly units, but there is still absolutely nothing that prohibits the aircraft from operating at night. A UH-60A doesn't have any special nighttime equipment (outside of NVGs), yet they still operate them at night if necessary.

Agreed. I just see a huge difference between theoretical capability and actual ability (whether it be system integration, training, safety or risk to friendly forces that degrades the ability).

[franze 196]

Quote[/b] ]

Cool. How many enemy aircraft did they shoot down with those Sidewinders? just kidding.

Four, actually. Along with two damaged. The action occurred on September 24th, 1958. The group was the 11th TFG, and the destroyed targets were MiG-15Bis. Damaged aircraft were MiG-17. (They killed 4 other aircraft in this action with 50 cal.)

Quote[/b] ]

Clearly there is a misunderstanding here. My point is that neither the Russian or U.S. military see equipping attack helicopters with high performance AAMs as being desirable or useful (to the point in where the Russians have not even tested them).

And I don't challenge that point, for the reasons you've stated. But again, my point is that there is nothing to keep them from using the weapons if the situation is dire enough. It's risky, but sometimes it's a risk they've got to take.

[Tovarish 0]

Here is a documental film about Kamov helicopters.

Link(280 MB. Rus).

Hey that's very cool

Do you have any more videos like that you could share? If so please pm me, very interesting, and a good way for me to brush up on my russian .

[whisper 0]

im not sure that you can say lock on is a better platform than a specifically designed game.. lock ons flight dynamics are.. lacking.. you cant use different sensors flight models are wrong. Lets hope they improve aircraft dynamics in next gen. That would be an idea. they should have different aquisition modeled e.g air to ground, air to air, sonar, lltv, flir. Realistic countermeasure ecm chaff flares etc more realistic .. well just general flight. And seing osprey and jsf are in it im sure theyre doing a descent vtol system for next gen.... so i have suspicion that some more of these may come true. maybe next gen will be heaven

You should try Flaming Cliffs

About OFP terrain being better suited, true, but I think OFP islands are too small for correct helicopter deployement

But the interaction with infantry is unique, which is a big, big bonus to using OFP as a chopper platform.

Now, OFP (more if you compare to LO) DOES lack in avionics and flightmodels.

[akd 0]

im not sure that you can say lock on is a better platform than a specifically designed game.. lock ons flight dynamics are.. lacking.. you cant use different sensors flight models are wrong. Lets hope they improve aircraft dynamics in next gen. That would be an idea. they should have different aquisition modeled e.g air to ground, air to air, sonar, lltv, flir. Realistic countermeasure ecm chaff flares etc more realistic .. well just general flight. And seing osprey and jsf are in it im sure theyre doing a descent vtol system for next gen.... so i have suspicion that some more of these may come true. maybe next gen will be heaven  

You should try Flaming Cliffs

About OFP terrain being better suited, true, but I think OFP islands are too small for correct helicopter deployement

But the interaction with infantry is unique, which is a big, big bonus to using OFP as a chopper platform.

Now, OFP (more if you compare to LO) DOES lack in avionics and flightmodels.

Yes, I was referring to the infantry presence and ground ops interaction aspect.

[akd 0]

Well, speaking of, this is pretty incredible:

http://media.naturalpoint.com/video....emo.wmv