KA50 can shoot down aircraft in ArmA why?

[NoRailgunner 0]

Quote[/b] ]Thats the kind of balance we want...like 1.75 T-72 equal one M1A1

You are wrong - 100% balanced stuff in that way and ArmA would be more like one of those mainstream shooters. There are differences and at least some of them should be recognized and used by player. Whats the sense if you know that your enemy has exactly the same weapons, vehicles etc. like you? Life's no walk in the park.

In the end use of KA50 depends on mission maker and his proper solutions (using addon/scripts).

Modern air-to-air combat is mostly BVR. Lets see if BIS can implement at least an proper working ECM with radar-warning indicator, chaff, active jamming and flares.

[ricnunes 0]

Ok here's my reply to you Walker:

1- As I previously said to you, yes the Hellfire can engage air targets. You can download this Powerpoint presention here:

http://nrotc.wisc.edu/course_....USN.ppt

In which if you move to the note page of slide 47, you'll see that the Hellfire can be used as an air-to-air weapon against helicopters or slow-moving fixed-wing aircraft. So he's one point that you're wrong about the Hellfire.

1.1- While games are far from being examples, I guess that many will agree that the most realistic combat helicopter sim ever made was Jane's Longbow2 and in this awesome (and much more realistic sim than ArmA) you can engage air targets with Hellfires.

1.2- The Hellfire missile doens't have 40 years old! Is was introduced in 1982, so that's 26 years (not 40)

Even if the Hellfire is older than the Vikhr, is has a more advanced guidance system, specially the HellfireII which is the system used today (will develop this further down) and it's perhaps newer than the Vikhr itself.

2- The Vikhr is a laser beam riding missile while the Hellfire missile is semi-active laser homing missile and while the Vikhr laser beam riding system is less prone of being jammed by enemy countermeasures this doesn't mean that the Vikhr system is more advanced! By the contrary the Vikhr is a simplier missile and therefore the Vikhr is less accurate than the Hellfire missile, actually you can confirm this here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AT-16_Scallion

The Vikhr has an inferior precision, that the Russian pilots are encouraged to launch these missiles in pairs (a thing that doesn't happen with the Hellfire). So if the Vikhr has a weaker precision (weaker than the Hellfire) against GROUND targets, I can only imagine that the precision against AIR targets is even worse (afterall it's harder to hit air targets and ground ones)!

2.1- Ok that the Vikhr has a fragmentation warhead, which gives an improved ability against air targets but having a precision which requires that in most cases it must be lauched in pairs against "easier" ground targets will only reinforce my claim that the Vikhr isn't a good/very precise anti-air missile because afterall hitting air targets is MUCH HARDER than hitting ground targets.

Also that Spiralling tragectory that the Vihkr has and the fact that it's constantly keeping with the center of the laser beam will definitly not help to give the missile a good precision against air targets, because with that kind of trajectory it will be very dificult for a missile to pursuit an aircraft, specially it the aircraft decides to make step turns. The Hellfire instead doesn't spiral which means that can make sharper turns (you can see this ability when the missile is launched in a loft profile) than the Vikhr.

2.2- So the Vikhr compared with Hellfire when engaging air targets has the advantage of having a fragmentation warhead and higher speed (but nevertheless both missiles are still supersonic and fast). The Hellfire compared with the Vikhr when engaging air targets is that it's more precise and has a better/more efficient flight profile to follow and hit moving targets (ANY kind of moving targets).

So I still say that both missiles have similar air-to-air capabilities, which is LIMITED and SECONDARY. None of those missiles will ever hit a fast moving and manouvering fighter such as the F-16 or Mig-29 (unless the pilot is careless enough to fly slow, low and straight in a combat zone), but BOTH of those missiles have some ability to engage slow moving aircraft (but while not manouvering hard) such as helicopters.

3- Resuming, I never said that the Vikhr can't engage air targets as well. what I said was:

3.1- The Hellfire can engage air targets as well. (see link above if you have doubts)

3.2- Neither the Hellfire and Vikhr are as effective as dedicated air-to-air missiles, such as the Sidewinder or AA-11 Archer.

3.3- In fact a laser guided missile hit where a laser is being pointed at, no matter what object is. To hit an aircraft with a laser guided missile, you must keep the laser pointed at the aircraft but the Hellfire and Vikhr aren't as effective as dedicated air-to-air missiles because they simply aren't as agile as dedicated air-to-air missiles.

3.4- For gameplay purposes I think that both the Hellfire and Vikhr shouldn't be able to engage air targets in ArmA because the Vikhr (and probably the Hellfire if that capability would be added) are way too effective against air targets in the game and make aircraft equiped with air-to-air missiles (like the Harrier and Su-34) redunctand and basically useless (no one will ever want to play with AA equiped Harrier and Su-34 having helicopters equiped with too effective missiles like the Vikhr).

3.5- So if BIS wants to be "realistic", it has to give the ability for the Hellfire to lock air targets and reduce DRASTICALLY the effectiveness/precision of those weapons when engaging AIR targets!

3.6- Of is BIS doesn't want to mess with effectiveness/precision levels for those missiles with the fear of bringing more potencial bugs and problems to ArmA than what they should do is to remove the ability to lock air targets to the Vikhr (and maintain the Hellfire as it is now). But one thing is for sure, to be REALISTIC or both the Vikhr and Hellfire will engage air targets or both will not, but never give the ability to one and not to the other, that's UNREALISTIC and also bring gameplay balance issues!

Fortunally, someone released a hotfix which removes that ridiculous over effective air-to-air capability of the Vikhr!

[ricnunes 0]

Ka-50 is too powerfull in arma? Give me a break, in ArmA ka-50 is not even close to what real KA-50 ahs to offer. What i'm saying Ka-50 is not good enough in ArmA, but people want balance, you can't balance AH-1 to KA-50, because AH-1 is crap compared to KA-50. AH-64 is needed instead  

I guess that people have to stop confusing the AH-1Z variant of the Cobra which is the one that it's modeled in ArmA with the Vietnam-era and 80's Cobras and even with the AH-1W Super Cobra.

The AH-1Z is a totally new and much more advanced combat helicopter than any previous Cobra. Hell, the AH-1Z is more advanced than the AH-64 Apache (has more advanced FLIR for example) and carries the same weaponry (both in weight/number of weapons carried and type of weapons).

Also the AH-1Z has a higher thrust-to-weight

ratio than the Apache for example, which makes a deadlier helicopter in a helicopter versus helicopter engagement!

Also, before saying that the AH-1Z is a crap and inferior to the Apache or Ka-50 read this:

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en/aircraft/military/bellAH-1Z.cfm

and this:

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en....web.pdf

[walker 0]

1- As I previously said to you, yes the Hellfire can engage air targets. You can download this Powerpoint presention here:

http://nrotc.wisc.edu/course_....USN.ppt

In which if you move to the note page of slide 47, you'll see that the Hellfire can be used as an air-to-air weapon against helicopters or slow-moving fixed-wing aircraft. So he's one point that you're wrong about the Hellfire.

Hi all

In reply to ricnunes

I quote from your powerpoint presentation on the slide 47 as you suggested

Quote[/b] ]Hellfire

Primary Function: Point target/anti-armor weapon, Semi-active laser seeker

Three variants: AGM-114B/K/M

Contractor: Boeing, Lockheed Martin

Power Plant: solid propellant rocket

Length: 5.33 feet (1.6246 meters)

Launch Weight: 98 to 107 pounds  

Diameter: 7 inches (17.78 centimeters)

Wing Span: 28 inches (0.71 meter)

Speed: Subsonic

Warhead: Shaped charge and blast fragmentation.

At no point does it say it is anti air capable

Also note your source says it is Subsonic. In fact it is Supersonic in indirect fire mode during the dive phase.

At no point have I ever said the the Cobra is crap or inferior; instead I have said it is venerable. I have though pointed out the age of the weapons platform which for the Cobra is 40 years of excelent service. It was retired from service in the US Army this year.

The reason for my pointing out the age of the platoform is that it is the whole platform that fires a missile not just the missile. So Cobra is not capable of firing the same Hellfire as the Apache Longbow saying that the Apache longbow can do something does not transfer that ability to the Cobra.

I was very careful in my post to state I was talking about specific platforms.

Kind Regards walker

[ricnunes 0]

Walker,

check the NOTE PAGE (not the slide itself), below the slide while in Normal View Mode.

Where it says:

"Description: Hellfire is an air-to-ground, laser guided, subsonic missile with significant antitank capacity. It can also be used as an air-to-air weapon against helicopters or slow-moving fixed-wing aircraft."

and

"Features: Hellfire can be used as an air-to-air or an air-to-ground missile. The Air-to-Ground (AGM)-114 provides precision striking power against tanks, structures, bunkers and helicopters. The Hellfire missile is capable of defeating any known tank in the world today. It can be guided to the target either from inside the aircraft or by lasers outside the aircraft."

[ricnunes 0]

The reason for my pointing out the age of the platoform is that it is the whole platform that fires a missile not just the missile. So Cobra is not capable of firing the same Hellfire as the Apache Longbow saying that the Apache longbow can do something does not transfer that ability to the Cobra.

This is where you're wrong. Yes, the AH-1Z can fire the exact same Hellfire as the Longbow Apache. It can even be equiped with a Longbow Radar.

AGAIN READ THIS:

http://www.bellhelicopter.com/en....web.pdf

You'll see that the AH-1Z is NEW helicopter. the only commonability that has from the previous versions is the name (AH-1 Cobra) and similar looking airframe, the rest is completly diferent!

[walker 0]

Walker,

check the NOTE PAGE (not the slide itself), below the slide while in Normal View Mode.

Where it says:

"Description: Hellfire is an air-to-ground, laser guided, subsonic missile with significant antitank capacity. It can also be used as an air-to-air weapon against helicopters or slow-moving fixed-wing aircraft."

and

"Features: Hellfire can be used as an air-to-air or an air-to-ground missile. The Air-to-Ground (AGM)-114 provides precision striking power against tanks, structures, bunkers and helicopters. The Hellfire missile is capable of defeating any known tank in the world today. It can be guided to the target either from inside the aircraft or by lasers outside the aircraft."

Point accepted the Hellfire can fire in AA mode against helicopters and slow flying fixed wing air.

The question is how well does it work?

So we come back to my point

Since the laser designator has to be reflecting off the aircraft for the seeker to track the target and get a hit.

Where as for a laser-beamrider there is no need for the guidance beam to be reflecting off the target in order to get a hit.

Kind regards walker

[ricnunes 0]

I would say that a laser reflects in an aircraft as well as it reflects in an tank. So if the Hellfire can follow a refected laser in a tank which is miles away it can also follow a laser reflected in an aircraft at the same distances.

The job of keeping the laser pointed at the target is from the FLIR/Optics which can follow a target using it's heat signature/target image, and all the gunner has to do is to keep the FLIR pointed at the aircraft which can also be achived by an "Autotrack" function.

[MehMan 0]

Rather than aruging if it's possible, argue how effective is it. In ArmA the Vikhr is not only modeled completely incorrectly, it's also far too agile, as shown in the video previously. There is no lock limit, you can lock at targets behind you and the missile will hit them.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to ricnunes.

I am as I said being specific about the Helicopters and keeping it strictly to the ones modeled in ArmA. ArmA is after all what we are discussing.

For laser designators like the Hellfire as used on the Cobra in ArmA seeking only takes place in the later phase of flight. The Hellfire is actually fired toward the target and then when it gets close enough for a reflected signal, the laser is turned on and the seeker starts to adjust flight. In the case of a fixed wing aircraft; in termination phase the Hellfire laser designator has to reflect exactly off a fast moving target; when surfaces, due to target aspect and passive counter measure, may not be ideal for the seeker to receive a reflection and get a track.

For most of the flight the VIKhR beamrider is not pointing at the target the computer is predicting path and updating missile path and at termination needs only to be within a cone of 5m radius of target surface to get a hit.

By the way it is only in Air to Air mode that double fire method is suggested in the KA50; in ATGM mode the single fire method is used and it has 90% kill probability.

On the matter of balance between the Harrier and the KA50 in ArmA I dispute your statement that

Quote[/b] ]3.4- For gameplay purposes I think that both the Hellfire and Vikhr shouldn't be able to engage air targets in ArmA because the Vikhr (and probably the Hellfire if that capability would be added) are way too effective against air targets in the game and make aircraft equiped with air-to-air missiles (like the Harrier and Su-34) redunctand and basically useless (no one will ever want to play with AA equiped Harrier and Su-34 having helicopters equiped with too effective missiles like the Vikhr).

I say the statement is ungrounded in any experimental data.

I suggested an experiment earlier and I have been testing and refining the experiment to include both over land and over sea and to balance things such as sun position. I will post up my experimental results here when done along with the experimental mission.

But I will say my initial results point to about a 2 to 1 advantage for the Sidewinder equipped fixed wing Harrier over the VIKhR equipped rotary wing KA50 in ArmA when Pilots are AI.

Kind Regards walker

[franze 196]

Let's not forget that the AI sucks at flying in general. Any human player worth his salt will absolutely hose the AI in a flying contest.

Against a human piloted Ka-50, there are many ways one can take it down. MANPADS are the most effective, up to a M136 to the belly or gunning it down. AH-1Z can beat it with the turreted gun and bob-up tricks. Vulcans could catch it, if strategically placed, and tanks could use their main guns on it.

Lastly, someone brought up the F/A-18 being shot down by it - only if the pilot is completely distracted or an idiot. AIM-120C trumps Vikhr every time in a fight. Even the AIM-9M/X on the wingtips can beat the Vikhr. So if you're flying around in the Super Hornet and there's Ka-50's around... You shouldn't have any problem dealing with them.

As a final note, the AH-1Z can be equipped with AIM-9M/X missiles on the wingtips, but due to proxy/AI issues they were not included as part of it's default armament.

[Rak 0]

But doesn't this in real-life mean that the KA50 Pilot needs to point his flight direction towards the to engaging enemy?

The laser beam-riding pointing device (even if its automatically) isn't on a 360° rotating turret as far as i know.

But in Arma its "Fire and Forget". You can Lock-on air target with it, fire, turn 180°, lock on the next and fire again, and so on....

This i what annoyes me at most.

Regards, Christian

Eh, you can hardly call ArmA a "simulation" for air vehicles anyway.

[ricnunes 0]

For laser designators like the Hellfire as used on the Cobra in ArmA seeking only takes place in the later phase of flight. The Hellfire is actually fired toward the target and then when it gets close enough for a reflected signal, the laser is turned on and the seeker starts to adjust flight. In the case of a fixed wing aircraft; in termination phase the Hellfire laser designator has to reflect exactly off a fast moving target; when surfaces, due to target aspect and passive counter measure, may not be ideal for the seeker to receive a reflection and get a track.

Don't get me wrong Walker, but again you are "narrowing" things again.

The Hellfire can be fired in two modes which are:

Lock After Launch (LOAL) which is basically what you described.

The other is Lock BEFORE Launch (LOBL), in which the laser is fired first and then the missile is launched. So NO, there's no problem for the Hellfire to track a laser which is pointing to a target miles away!

Read here about the firing modes of the Hellfire:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/agm-114.htm

[ricnunes 0]

Against a human piloted Ka-50, there are many ways one can take it down. MANPADS are the most effective, up to a M136 to the belly or gunning it down. AH-1Z can beat it with the turreted gun and bob-up tricks. Vulcans could catch it, if strategically placed, and tanks could use their main guns on it.

Don't get me wrong but from I read the Vikhr can now engage air targets because it's "realistic" but than in this case the Hellfire should have the same capability as well, not because of balance but because it's also realistic.

Honestly with the "super Vikhrs" that we now have it's almost impossible for a Human piloted Cobra (and it's even worse if the gunner is also human) to "win" against a Human piloted Ka-50, even if the Cobra pilot execute "perfect" tactical manouvers such as "bobups" and terrain masking. With the current "Super Vikhrs" the only way for a Cobra crew to win against a Ka-50 is if there're lucky (like the Ka-50 sudently appearing in front of the Cobra at short range, unaware of the Cobra) or the Ka-50 pilot being lousy. This is because first of all, those Vikhrs locks a Cobra literally miles away and are super agile and super effective (hardly a Vikhr misses it's target now! and like someone already mentioned these Vikhrs are fire and forget while the Cobra Gun while being in a turreted position is very short ranged!

Honestly instead of messing with the Vikhrs I think that BIS should as a priority and if their goal is to improve the KA-50s, than BIS should make enemy targets (both air and ground) "targetable" by the KA-50 cannon and make it moveable (which can in real and while limted can be depressed from +3º to -30º in elevation and -2º to +9º in traversed) instead of fixed aimed as it is now.

Finally, don't forget that while the air-to-air missile of the Cobra is in fact the Sidewinder, the air-to-air missile of the KA-50 is the IGLA-V (and not the Vikhr).

[subs17 9]

For most of the flight the VIKhR beamrider is not pointing at the target the computer is predicting path and updating missile path and at termination needs only to be within a cone of 5m radius of target surface to get a hit.

By the way it is only in Air to Air mode that double fire method is suggested in the KA50; in ATGM mode the single fire method is used and it has 90% kill probability.

Compare 90% for a vhkr to a hellfire which always hits its tgt, hellfires rarely ever miss even moving tgts even if the tgts laser detection system picks up the laser it is too late. The Hellfire is a far better more reliable missile than a vhkr and the latest LOAL versions make it an even better weapon since the launch platform can fire the missile without exposing itself to the tgt. Imagine that the enemy is sitting in his tank doesn't have a chance at all he won't even see the helicopter popup because they don't need too unlike the KA50s Shivkal targetting system. And the AH64 holds the 2nd place vs the A-10 for killing tanks at 500 kills. As for A/A modes both missiles require the tgt to be inside the launch aircrafts targetting display which is the difficult part for a fast mover since exposure is a very short period of time where you have to slew the TDC and lock the tgt. The vihkr does have an advantage by there being no warning but the 2d control surfaces would make any A/A kill quite tricky. (only A/A kill I've seen with Vhkrs was a large slow moving tgt)

[subs17 9]

But doesn't this in real-life mean that the KA50 Pilot needs to point his flight direction towards the to engaging enemy?

The laser beam-riding pointing device (even if its automatically) isn't on a 360° rotating turret as far as i know.

But in Arma its "Fire and Forget". You can Lock-on air target with it, fire, turn 180°, lock on the next and fire again, and so on....

This i what annoyes me at most.

Regards, Christian

Eh, you can hardly call ArmA a "simulation" for air vehicles anyway.

Its actually better than any other FPS or console sim it just needs a few improvements to make it better. I think its possible in future versions to make flyable aircraft similar to lockons A-10 if the devs wanted to.

[lugiahua 26]

I must point out 2 things I nothiced

1.Vikhr is more effective than AIM-9X ingame now

2.Even MAP-Apaches with AIM9X stand no chance against KA-50s...

[max power 21]

Russian and American helicopter tactics differ quite a bit. This is reflected in the make of each missile.

The Russians like to fly at top speed at treetop level, to climb to 100 meters and start a shallow dive at their missile's max range, fire, complete the attack run and then bug out. They don't like to creep around behind trees and loiter. This is reflected in the missile's vikhr's design, being a very long range (10km), supersonic missile. It is also reflected in the designs of the helicopter, since russian military helicopters typically have slow moving rotors with many blades to allow for a higher top speed. Their tactics very much pinion around surprise, and do not rely on terrain features.

The Americans like to sneak around and hide behind hills and rely a great deal on stealth. So, their helicopters often have high speed rotors for a lot of low speed maneuverability. Their missiles are comparatively slow flying with lower range, but in the case of the hellfire you have features which limit the time the helicopter must be exposed- fire and forget radar guidance or indirect fire capability.

[ShrubMiK 0]

There's a few important differences between an AT and an AA missile.

1. Warhead and fusing. Most AA missiles detonate close to the target, rather than relying on actually hitting it. It doesn't take a powerful warhead to bring down an aircraft. With a tank, OTOH, a direct hit and a relatively powerful warhead is required to penetrate.

Carrying two separate warheads and fusing systems on one missile would mean a heavier, slower, less agile missile.

That's why you are more likely to see a primarily AT missile with a secondary AA capability than the other way around, if it can hit it will kill...but the question is: can it hit?

2. True AA missiles tend to be faster and more agile. It's much harder to hit a fast, agile aircraft than a tank trundling along sedately...I don't think anybody is disputing this

3. Guidance systems. Mostly radar homing or infra read for AA missiles. Why not laser? There's probably a few reasons:

a) It is not good to have to keep a designator pointed at the target until the missile hits. Fire-and-forget capability is a big tactical advantage.

b) Interference. The sky is a lot brighter than the ground, especially if the target is close to the sun. A more powerful laser and more sophisticated signal processing is required to filter out the interference in such circumstances.

c) There's also a big difference between the laser-designator and laser beam rider approach that has implications for ability to hit fast moving targets. Let's assume there's no problem keeping the laser designator locked on to the target - that's quite an easy problem to solve. But the missile homing on that reflected laser light is heading straight toward the target. If the target is crossing our field of view, the missile will end up following a big curve, eventually coming up on the target from behind. This means to be successful it must have longer range and be fast enough to overtake the target at the end.

Contrast that with a beam rider...it is much easier to have the firing system calculate an interception point somewhere ahead of the target, point the beam at that interception point, have the missile fly straight along the beam and therefore fly a more direct path, need less range and speed (and hence fuel) in order to be able to successfully hit.

So I suspect neither Vikhr or Hellfire is any good against jets, and that whilst both would be good against slow moving helis, beam-riding gives a big advantage against faster moving helis.

[ricnunes 0]

c) There's also a big difference between the laser-designator and laser beam rider approach that has implications for ability to hit fast moving targets. Let's assume there's no problem keeping the laser designator locked on to the target - that's quite an easy problem to solve. But the missile homing on that reflected laser light is heading straight toward the target. If the target is crossing our field of view, the missile will end up following a big curve, eventually coming up on the target from behind. This means to be successful it must have longer range and be fast enough to overtake the target at the end.

Contrast that with a beam rider...it is much easier to have the firing system calculate an interception point somewhere ahead of the target, point the beam at that interception point, have the missile fly straight along the beam and therefore fly a more direct path, need less range and speed (and hence fuel) in order to be able to successfully hit.

So I suspect neither Vikhr or Hellfire is any good against jets, and that whilst both would be good against slow moving helis, beam-riding gives a big advantage against faster moving helis.

Yes, but one must not forget that the Hellfire tracks and hits a spot (where the laser is being pointed at) while the Vikhr will follow a direction or heading and hits anything that crosses the missile's path, this aproach does obviously make the Hellfire a much more precise weapon, afterall hitting a spot is more precisethan "drawing" a line miles may intercept a target miles away. And precision is very important while trying to hit air targets (and not only ground ones).

I understand what you're saying about the advantages of Semi-Active Laser and Beam-Ridding Laser system and in theory I agree with you. For example the Canadian Mobile Air Defence System, the ADATS uses the Beam-Ridding Laser system, but within missiles that uses the same targeting technique we have diferent "performances" and here what we are "evaluating" are two missiles the Hellfire and Vikhr and the problem with the Vikhr which is a very big one is that this missile has a flight trajectory (spiral trajectory) coupled with 2D control surfaces which is definitly NOT good for engaging aerial targets specially if the targets decides to turn. Also this kind of trajectory will make the missile to consume more fuel compared with a missile that flied in a straight trajectory (afterall in a spiral trajectory the missile will travel a "longer distance"). With this kind if trajectory the Vikhr only as a chance for hitting an aerial target if it flies directly towards or away from the launching helicopter.

There are advantages that both missiles (Hellfire and Vikhr) have against each other while engaging air targets seem somehow to level each others advantage. That's why I say that both missiles have a very similar performance when engaging air targets.

Is there a missile better than the other when engaging air targets? Yes sure there is, but we don't know for sure what missile is and for sure that the advantage of the "best" of the two (again while engaging air targets) is very, very NARROW.

[ravenholme 50]

I've just been checking out the manufacturers specs (The only people I'm trusting about it, seeing as they made the blooming missile) for the AGM-114 Hellfire. Lockheed Martin give no mention of any Air-to-Air or even Surface-to-Air capacity for their missiles, which if present, wouldn't be quite a major selling point, no?

There are variants of the AGM-114, but none of those are even AA capable, mostly they're for dealing with specific targets, bunkers, ships and the like.

Calm down Ricnunes, it would appear that IF the AGM-114 has AA capabilities (And I remain doubtful after checking out Lockheed-Martin and finding no mention of it), then it's so ineffective as to be unmentioned by the manufacturers, whereas the Vikhrs is designed with that dual-purpose in mind.

Feel free to search the Lockheed-Martin site and find information that contradicts that which I found by quickly googling it (Search was "Lockheed Martin Hellfire")

Edit:

I believe, that if any AA capability is introduced, it's probably due to the Longbow FCS. Which, as you may have noticed, is not present in ArmA due to lack of AH-64/WAH-64

2nd Edit:

Discussed it with a guy who would know this sort of thing, and he mentions that the AH-64 can certainly use it in an AA capacity, but it is only useful against slow-moving air targets (Helicopters) and due to the fact that the warhead is impact detonated, a good pilot can get out of the way as soon as the "Lock-on" warning is triggered. He was, however, a little hazy on the AH-1Z's capability to do this.

[max power 21]

c) There's also a big difference between the laser-designator and laser beam rider approach that has implications for ability to hit fast moving targets. Let's assume there's no problem keeping the laser designator locked on to the target - that's quite an easy problem to solve. But the missile homing on that reflected laser light is heading straight toward the target. If the target is crossing our field of view, the missile will end up following a big curve, eventually coming up on the target from behind. This means to be successful it must have longer range and be fast enough to overtake the target at the end.

Contrast that with a beam rider...it is much easier to have the firing system calculate an interception point somewhere ahead of the target, point the beam at that interception point, have the missile fly straight along the beam and therefore fly a more direct path, need less range and speed (and hence fuel) in order to be able to successfully hit.

So I suspect neither Vikhr or Hellfire is any good against jets, and that whilst both would be good against slow moving helis, beam-riding gives a big advantage against faster moving helis.

Yes, but one must not forget that the Hellfire tracks and hits a spot (where the laser is being pointed at) while the Vikhr will follow a direction or heading and hits anything that crosses the missile's path, this aproach does obviously make the Hellfire a much more precise weapon, afterall hitting a spot is more precisethan "drawing" a line miles may intercept a target miles away. And precision is very important while trying to hit air targets (and not only ground ones).

I understand what you're saying about the advantages of Semi-Active Laser and Beam-Ridding Laser system and in theory I agree with you. For example the Canadian Mobile Air Defence System, the ADATS uses the Beam-Ridding Laser system, but within missiles that uses the same targeting technique we have diferent "performances" and here what we are "evaluating" are two missiles the Hellfire and Vikhr and the problem with the Vikhr which is a very big one is that this missile has a flight trajectory (spiral trajectory) coupled with 2D control surfaces which is definitly NOT good for engaging aerial targets specially if the targets decides to turn. Also this kind of trajectory will make the missile to consume more fuel compared with a missile that flied in a straight trajectory (afterall in a spiral trajectory the missile will travel a "longer distance"). With this kind if trajectory the Vikhr only as a chance for hitting an aerial target if it flies directly towards or away from the launching helicopter.

There are advantages that both missiles (Hellfire and Vikhr) have against each other while engaging air targets seem somehow to level each others advantage. That's why I say that both missiles have a very similar performance when engaging air targets.

Is there a missile better than the other when engaging air targets? Yes sure there is, but we don't know for sure what missile is and for sure that the advantage of the "best" of the two (again while engaging air targets) is very, very NARROW.

Can you show me your source that says the vikhr and the hellfire have 'similar performance'  when being used air to air? That's quite a large statement and I think it's false.

[ricnunes 0]

Discussed it with a guy who would know this sort of thing, and he mentions that the AH-64 can certainly use it in an AA capacity, but it is only useful against slow-moving air targets (Helicopters) and due to the fact that the warhead is impact detonated, a good pilot can get out of the way as soon as the "Lock-on" warning is triggered. He was, however, a little hazy on the AH-1Z's capability to do this.

This is exactly what I mentioned, the Hellfire has a capability to engage air targets but it's secondary as it happens with the Vikhr.

Replying to your point about that the Vikhr specs mentioning an Air-to-Air capability while the Hellfire don't, that IMO easy to explain:

The Vikhr has inded an Air-to-Air mode which will activate de proximity fuse for it's fragmentation when the missile is near an enemy aircraft (You certainly don't have/need this ability when engaging a tank for example).

The Hellfire when engaging an Aerial target uses the same mode(s) that it uses when engaging ground targets, that's it and that's why it isn't mentioned in the Hellfire specs an "Air-to-Air" mode!

But this doesn't mean that:

1- The Hellfire can't engage air targets! I think that it's more than proved that the Hellfire CAN ENGAGE Air targets!

2- The Vihkr is more precise against air targets than the Hellfire (or vice-versa for that matter)

[ricnunes 0]

Can you show me your source that says the vikhr and the hellfire have 'similar performance'  when being used air to air?  That's quite a large statement and I think it's false.

My friend, you can believe what you want and but these 2 points are FACTS:

1- The Hellfire can also engage Air targets

2- Both the Hellfire and Vikhr have a SECONDARY and VERY LIMITED capability against air targets, specially if the air target is manouvering and moving fast.

[max power 21]

Can you show me your source that says the vikhr and the hellfire have 'similar performance' when being used air to air? That's quite a large statement and I think it's false.

My friend, you can believe what you want and but these 2 points are FACTS:

1- The Hellfire can also engage Air targets

2- Both the Hellfire and Vikhr have a SECONDARY and VERY LIMITED capability against air targets, specially if the air target is manouvering and moving fast.

Yes, but your assertion that they are equal in this task is unsubstantiated. If these items in this post are your premises to support your conclusion, there is a gigantic hole in your logic. Further, I think you now need to define 'secondary' and 'limited'. I do not think they are the same thing for both missiles. I think that the hellfire has a secondary anti aircraft capability in the same way that an m16 does. The vikhr is a beam riding supersonic missile with terminal retransmission(?) homing and it is much more suited to the task and I think that AA for that missile is a secondary capability by design.