KA50 can shoot down aircraft in ArmA why?

[ricnunes 0]

Well consider this in order to lock a ground tgt they first have to ground stabilise then adjust the TDC box to tgt size then slew TDC onto the tgt and lock followed by laser and then fire. You can't ground stabilise an air target without a solid background. And thats pretty much the reason why I think Hellfires aren't used for that purpose. Look at the 30mm gun if its in visual range hes probably able to hit it with the gun and it follows the pilots head tracking. Gun is the most ideal A/A weapon since most engagements would be quite close anyway.

Actually the Apache and Cobra FLIR have an "autotrack" mode in which the gunner aims the crosshair into the termal image of the target, which in this would be the image of the target aircraft and the FLIR will follow that target (until the target gets out of the FLIR field of view or is "unlocked" by the gunner).

And since there's a very good contrast between the hot termal image of an aircraft and the background sky, the autotrack mode will work very well while tracking an air target.

You don't need ground stabilise mode for this. This is done using autotrack mode. But and speaking about the ground stabilise mode, even in this mode you can still lock air targets since the the ground stabilise mode doesn't NOT lock ground targets "per se". What ground stabilise mode does is to fix the camera (FLIR for example) movement so that the camera doesn't move together with the aircraft, being this way much easier for a gunner to lock ANY targets he/she whishes.

[ricnunes 0]

The argument that since the vikhr has only 2 control surfaces that it should not be lockable in air to air despite a large body of evidence that the real vikhr can be locked on to air targets by the shkval fire control system is nonsense.

Jesus, are you blind you don't you know how to read!

I never said that the Vikhr shouldn't lock aircraft because it has 2D control surfaces!!!!

What I say is that if the Vikhr can lock aircraft the Hellfire should do the same! Nothing more, nothing less.

And I said that if the Hellfire can't lock air targets the Vikhr shouldn't lock as well since both "lock aircraft" the same way which is by using optical sensors (normally a FLIR), again Nothing more, nothing less.

My point in case you care to read which sometimes doesn't seem to be the case, is that Vikhr isn't that effective has many seem to believe and that the Hellfire is capable of engaging air targets as well.

Quote[/b] ]This argument has nothing to do with precision, only whether or not the vikhr or hellfire should be air lockable.

And I said, the Hellfire can be "air lockable". I think this is clear by now!

Quote[/b] ]LOL. No, what I'm saying is that the M16 should not be air lockable. LOL, this argument is so weak. I've never said anything about whether you should be able to use it on aircraft or not. Clearly, using LGB's in ArmA, you can try to designate a flying helicopter, lock onto the laser, and see what happens. The same is possible with the hellfire. I'm talking about lockability, not useability.

Of course the M-16 shouldn't lock air targets, it isn't a guided weapon! My point here was that just because a weapon wasn't designed for something it doesn't mean that it can be used for that same thing!

Quote[/b] ]Clearly, using LGB's in ArmA, you can try to designate a flying helicopter, lock onto the laser, and see what happens. The same is possible with the hellfire. I'm talking about lockability, not useability.

No, you can't lock a helicopter with a Hellfire, not autonomously anyway. Making the Hellfire "Air lockable" (using the "TAB" key) will give the player the ability to autonomously lock a helicopter with a Hellfire, like IT CAN IN REALITY!

Quote[/b] ]No, no refute of the cannon shooting things under the gunner control. Now, find me some references that the TADS can lock onto airborne targets, and either slave the gun and shoot, or designate a moving aircraft and fire a hellfire at it. Then, tell me what under what envelope the hellfire is able to hit moving aircraft. I hope you will actually include some support to your next post, it's not hard.

Really this is getting annoying and the only reason that I continue to post here is because ArmA is my favourite game which I bought with my well deserved money. Only because of this I will continue to reply to you coments:

I've already pointed you to a source that indicates that AH-1Z TSS (The AH-1Z "TADS") can lock air targets and I'm almost sure that the Apache's TADS can also lock air targets as well but nevertheless the AH-1Z is the "western helicopter" modeled in ArmA an not the Apache! If you don't want to read my sources fine, but at least don't post here saying that I don't post sources because you don't simply don't want to read them!

Anyway, a FLIR (like the Apache one) for example will lock ANY TERMAL Image, it doesn't matter if it's a termal of a tank, a truck, a house/construction or an aircraft! It's not like the FLIR will reply to the gunner:

"OH NO, I will not lock that termal image because it's from an aircraft and the contructor doesn't put in it's web site that I can lock an air target!"

Really, if you want to understand how a FLIR works, understand the mechanics behind it and don't only rely on the contructor often uncomplete "list of capabilities" (which is most of the times done on purpose). Of course what we're talking here in the end is about the Apache TADS because again there's clear information that AH-1Z TSS can lock air targets!

[ricnunes 0]

"Air-to-Air and Air-to-Ground modes" and "Designation for Hellfire missilie" are listed as seperate points. It doesn't say anything about a "Air-to-Air designation for the Hellfire Missile".

Hi MaddogX,

Yes, I know that and that was a direct reply only show that the AH-1Z optical system (the TSS) can in fact lock air targets and not directly to show that the Hellfire is used to "normally" attack air targets (for that exists the Sidewinder). But if you can lock an air target with the TSS, you can also fire a laser into that aircraft and if you can lock a laser into that aircraft and if the aircraft isn't moving too fast and manouvering too hard than a Hellfire can inded hit that air target.

Quote[/b] ]Air-to-Air mode is more likely there for dedicated Air-to-Air missiles. Also in your cited article from Jane's, it says that there were "trials" for the Hellfires anti-air capabilities - it neither specifies whether these trials were successful, nor does it say anywhere that the Hellfire is actually used against air targets.

And also for the cannon as well.

I know that the Jane's site says that "trials were made" and really doesn't say the results of those trials, but nevertheless this clearly shows that the Hellfire is certainly capable of locking air targets and perhaps hitting them too or else no-one would spend Hellfire missiles trying to hit air targets in trials! I think this is quite logic.

[NoRailgunner 0]

That goes imho into balancing topic:

Quote[/b] ]What I say is that if the Vikhr can lock aircraft the Hellfire should do the same! Nothing more, nothing less.

Why don't you moan about missing air-to-air missiles for all attack helicopters by default model/config/missile proxies? It is somehow possible to add such air-to air missiles by mission creator like Mandoble pointed out.

On the other hand - do Cobras have ejection system for pilot and gunner? Methink with little mission scripting you can avoid that in ArmA too.

Guess how many (mainstream shooter) people more will cry and blame BIS devs if they would implement all real unbalanced things....

[frederf 0]

Quote[/b] ] this clearly shows that the Hellfire is certainly capable of locking air targets and perhaps hitting them too or else no-one would spend Hellfire missiles trying to hit air targets in trials! I think this is quite logic.

That's a rather weak armament. By the same argument I could say that if tried to throw basketballs through a basketball hoop from a 747 then clearly it is possible to do this. Also there's the problem with ArmA in that if something is "remotely possible" then all of a sudden it's being done right and left without regard to realism.

There likely was tweaks made to the launch platform and missile guidance in order to even test the remote possibility of such engagements under lab conditions that made them significantly different than the fielded models.

I mean ideally the Russian missile could engage via A2A if:

1. They didn't do it with insane speed and precision

2. All the various warning equipment onboard the target worked

3. Countermeasures were in

4. The maneuverability of BIS missiles wasn't insane

5. Etc, etc

6. Laser ride was necessary for a hit

7. Etc, etc

That's the problem with ArmA a lot of times, theoretically possible or difficult becomes "100 times before breakfast with one hand and barely paying attention" far too readily.

[subs17 9]

Best way to fix this then is to have a FLIR display for launching the Hellfire. A MFD for the Shivkal to launch vhkrs and to have a button for a laser and AAMs for the AH1 and the KA50. That way only tgts locked with the MFDs can have Vhikrs/hellfires launched at them and air tgts will get mainly hit by AAMs such as Aim9 and Strela.

[max power 21]

Yes, I know that and that was a direct reply only show that the AH-1Z optical system (the TSS) can in fact lock air targets and not directly to show that the Hellfire is used to "normally" attack air targets (for that exists the Sidewinder). But if you can lock an air target with the TSS, you can also fire a laser into that aircraft and if you can lock a laser into that aircraft and if the aircraft isn't moving too fast and manouvering too hard than a Hellfire can inded hit that air target.

And also for the cannon as well.

I know that the Jane's site says that "trials were made" and really doesn't say the results of those trials, but nevertheless this clearly shows that the Hellfire is certainly capable of locking air targets and perhaps hitting them too or else no-one would spend Hellfire missiles trying to hit air targets in trials! I think this is quite logic.

THe problem is that the Vikhr is 'normally' used to engage air targets because it was meant to. You consistently fail to provide any source of information regarding the comparative ability of the hellfire to do so. Logic is not enough, you also need facts. You have no information regarding whether the hellfire can be used in TADS or TSS air to air mode, and you have not found or shown any information on the limitations of boons of the air to air capabilities of the missile itself. We can not assume that the vikhr and the hellfire are equal to this task and therefore because one is lockable on aircraft in arma does not mean that the other should be as well. You need to find this information... unless you're not arguing from a realism standpoint, and then we can just agree to disagree based on some game play sensibility that you have.

BTW, 'trails were made' does not mean that they were successful means that it does not clearly show that they can be used on aircraft. This, I think, is fairly basic. That conclusion is not logical in the slightest. It neglects the relevant evidence that sometimes tests fail.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

THe problem is that the Vikhr is 'normally' used to engage air targets because it was meant to.  You consistently fail to provide any source of information regarding the comparative ability of the hellfire to do so.  Logic is not enough, you also need facts.  

I thought the fact that helfires could be used to take out choppers and slow moving aircraft was old news. Like decades old.

But that aside much of the info I've seen people point to about the Vikhr looks and reads like the kind of marketing and advertising propaganda you see at international airshows. The kind of stuff Russia needs to keep foriegn currency rolling in. And the trail footage seems to using old flying barges for target practice.

And before someone points the finger and screams 'naysayer' at me. I couldn't give a crap about game balance, in fact in MP I couldn't tell you which side I play most or even prefer. And I'm quite satisfied that the Vikhr can and should be able to hit air targets. But i think the way its been handled sucks.

Until BIS are prepared to improve a crap load of issues relating to air combat they should simply stay away from this sort of thing. If they're going to tout the game as a military simulator then they have to remain sensitive to not only how lethal modern combat is but also its complexities. turning the KA into some monster that can fire and forget on multiple land and fast moving air targets in a matter of seconds is simply unrealistic and only drags Arma towards the arcade style games that so many Arma players seem to avoid.

[max power 21]

Yeah, but what I was saying is that we have no information that we can compare between the two missiles. Hype or not, we've found a number of corroborative sources that give bits and pieces about the air to air capability of the shkvall and the vikhr. Whether the hellfire has air to air capability, and what kind, we haven't found any information on.

And I agree 100% about the way arma handles all missiles. I don't really like it. I think you can tone down the vikhr by tweaking it's properties as a missile, though. Maybe BIS will consider this.. or maybe they will give an option to have an ah-1z with aim-9's or stingers? We'll have to see what happens, if this is a severe balance issue. THey can also make up for the problem by cranking up the cost of the thing in warfare aswell.

[USSRsniper 0]

Ka-50 can shoot down aircraft, but its not easy to do in ArmA, you need to have vikhr pointing on target, and only way you can do it is by turning whole helicopter.. In real lfie you lock the target using gunsight on the helment, and lock the target and shkval will track the target automatically.  Also about vikhrs not beign good enough, thats why in combat Ka-50 or SU-25 equiped with vikhrs usually fire mroe then one missile at one target. But ArMA is not flight simulator so target locking on KA-50 is same as for AA missiles, press one button and target locked, while in reality target has to be locked with vikhr, manually. AA capability of shkval vikhr combo is limited, you jsut shoot down enemy aircraft just as amored target, missile flies where laser is pointing to.

Here is why vihkr and shkval are limited, first laser has to stay on the target, Vihrk is needs to actually hit airplane, while AA missiles explode near it.

But anyways i don't care ArmA is not flight simulator, BSI shoudl fix tanks and APC's to make them mroe realistic :P before moving on to the aircraft...

Man some people lost their mind removing AA capability of Vikhr completely, you want realism or "balance", if you want balance, pick up copy of BF2  

But vikhr was developed with AA capabilities in mind unlike hellfire, that hwhy it can have proximity fuse, which will make missile work the same way as AA missiles.

[ricnunes 0]

THe problem is that the Vikhr is 'normally' used to engage air targets because it was meant to.

This is one of the many points where we disagree! The Vikhr is NOT 'normally' used to engage air targets. Like the Hellfire the Vikhr is designed to be an air-to-ground missile not an air-to-air one.

Replying to the question why there's NO "Air-to-Air mode" advertised for the Hellfire which some ask here is IMO because the Hellfire when engaging an aerial target uses the same firing modes that it uses when engaging a tank for example! In fact the TADS/Hellfire or the TSS/Hellfire doesn't diferenciate between a tank or person or a truck or a helicopter or a plane, it's all termal images (when those sensors are in FLIR mode) that are locked by the sensor and the missile (Hellfire) follows the laser pointed into the termal image (gain no matter what image is).

The Shkival, does exactly the same thing as a TADS or TSS when locking an air target, it's a camera that locks a termal image (when in FLIR mode), nothing more nothing less.

The only diference that you see regarding any "Air-to-Air capability" between the Vikhr and Hellfire is that the Vikhr has an "Air-to-Air mode" in which will activate it's Proximity fuze while the Hellfire doesn't have a proximity fuze and doesn't have an "air-to-air mode". Resuming the Hellfire is fired against air targets using the existing air-to-ground modes.

Quote[/b] ]BTW, 'trails were made' does not mean that they were successful means that it does not clearly show that they can be used on aircraft. This, I think, is fairly basic. That conclusion is not logical in the slightest. It neglects the relevant evidence that sometimes tests fail.

The Hellfire isn't a "dumb" weapon and it isn't fired unguided. So if trials were made against air targets this CLEARLY means that:

- It was possible to lock a laser into an air target and fire a Hellfire missile in it's GUIDED state against air targets.

- We don't know what the results were, but if the Hellfire wouldn't be possible to be fired at air targets, I'm 100% sure that such trial would never take place.

-Also like Pathetic_Berserker said, the FACT that helfires can be used to take out choppers and slow moving aircraft is old news, which most that follow military aviation and weaponry for decades already know for a long time.

Finally, just to conclude this thing. People are "complaining" that there isn't anything written that says the "Hellfire can be used against air targets" (which I already explained IMO, why), but those same people have to realise that it's not only important to have written facts about weapons but it's also as important to understand how weapons to work and the mechanincs behind it because noone will ever find all the public data needed to make a realistic simulation using only public available data. Hell, you won't find most of the data about weapons using "public data", that's why an understanding about how these systems works is necessary to model them accuratly and to complete any uncompleted data which happens very often. Actually this discussion about Hellfires is one very small example of this.

[ricnunes 0]

Also surprised that vikhr can get air targets in real life? So guess what, laser guided bombs can be used as Anti air too, just point the laser at BIG hovering helicopter   Any laser targeted missile has AA capabilities, if you can lase ground targets then why not airplanes?   hellfires can hit air targets even though "officially" it can't, while shkval was actualy tested in development against air targets.

Actually that's why I say that the Hellfire should also lock air targets as well (and not only the Vikhr).

[USSRsniper 0]

ricnunes

What is this then? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z03y04imhQg armored target and airplane with one missile, vikhr are precise, but you need moe missiles to increase lethality, also notice vikhrs flight path, compared to hellfire which flies straight..

[ricnunes 0]

ricnunes

What is this then? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z03y04imhQg armored target and airplane with one missile, vikhr are precise, but you need moe missiles to increase lethality, also notice vikhrs flight path, compared to hellfire which flies straight..

Look Sniper,

My point was that one thing was hitting a very big, non-manouvering targets like that Tu-16 other completly diferent thing was hitting a manouvering air target (even a manouvering ground target is diferent).

Nevertheless, I defend that both the Vikhr and the Hellfire should lock air targets, so I don't see the point in this last post of yours since it seems that we are on agreement, at least according to this:

Quote[/b] ]Also surprised that vikhr can get air targets in real life? So guess what, laser guided bombs can be used as Anti air too, just point the laser at BIG hovering helicopter Any laser targeted missile has AA capabilities, if you can lase ground targets then why not airplanes? hellfires can hit air targets even though "officially" it can't, while shkval was actualy tested in development against air targets.

[USSRsniper 0]

ricnunes

What is this then? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z03y04imhQg armored target and airplane with one missile, vikhr are precise, but you need moe missiles to increase lethality, also notice vikhrs flight path, compared to hellfire which flies straight..

Look Sniper,

My point was that one thing was hitting a very big, non-manouvering targets like that Tu-16 other completly diferent thing was hitting a manouvering air target (even a manouvering ground target is diferent).

Nevertheless, I defend that both the Vikhr and the Hellfire should lock air targets, so I don't see the point in this last post of yours since it seems that we are on agreement, at least according to this:

Quote[/b] ]Also surprised that vikhr can get air targets in real life? So guess what, laser guided bombs can be used as Anti air too, just point the laser at BIG hovering helicopter   Any laser targeted missile has AA capabilities, if you can lase ground targets then why not airplanes?   hellfires can hit air targets even though "officially" it can't, while shkval was actualy tested in development against air targets.

the problem is, hellfires and vikhrs lock the target as AA missiles, you sdont need to actualy point at the target..

Vikhr is accurate, even for moving targets, the reson why missiles is launched in pair is to amke sure tank and everyone inside is dead, with one missile you might jsut disable tank, but what about people inside?   maybe make it like this, make hellfires less deadly against aircraft even though you can lock on. reason why tis because vikhr cna explode near targets with proximity fuse, not sure about hellfire, but i think they don't have proximity fuse.. So vikhr wins here, if you can have proximity fuse, it means you have chance agains't faster aifcraft too, while hellfire needs to actually directly hit the airplane with the missile.

[ricnunes 0]

Unfortunally we don't have a realistic targeting system in ArmA, where you should aim the FLIR/Optical camera into enemy targets instead of relying on the "TAB" key. I wish we could have a realistic optical targeting system and I really wish to have such system is ArmA2.

So my guess is that the best solution would be something like SUBS17 said in a post here which was:

"Limiting the vhikrs to low aspect low speed tgts and hellfires to slow moving or stationary/hovering aircraft."

But anyway, both the Vikhr and Hellfire should be able to lock enemy aircraft using the "TAB" key, which unfortunally is the only locking system for helos that we have in ArmA.

[Barely-injured 0]

ricnunes, what are the chances that a hellfire will be able to hit a reasonably fast air target even like the "very big, non-maneuvering targets" like the Tu-16 that you seem to mock all the time?

You see when using ground mod like you say for the hellfire it is technically difficult to lase an air target and requires certain conditions to be met and while it is certainly not impossible it is very hard to actually score a hit with this method.

I dont know why you keep suggesting that the hellfire and vikher air to air performance is somewhat similar, and that BIS should add the ability to lock air targets for the hellfire just like the vikher which is in terms of the game scope is pointless.

The way I see it there are two ways BIS can go about this the first is they redesign the whole engine moving it to a flight sim level allowing proper MFDs, FLIRS, targeting and lasing systems.. etc... Which will technically allow the gunner to try to use systems for something they were not designed for to attempt to engage an air target with a hellfire (or an AT-6 for ArmA 2's hind). Or the second way is to keep the current system as it is with reducing the vikher's agility and lunch window. Guess which one is more realistically achievable by the developers?

[pathetic_berserker 4]

ricnunes, i am curious to know whether the powerpiont presentation you pionted out earlier as 'writen proof' is an actual USMC USN training document. If it is, it could mean that the lack of proof that the Hellfire can be used on air targets is due to the fact that they don't want service people to rely on that capability as they have other means for dealing with air threats. And that said service people would of course only use the hellfire if it had a lock and probably as a last resort.

Way i see it, is that everyone here is acualy in basic agreement about the capabilities of both missiles. Its a matter of wether or not the current implemtation is acceptable for gameplay.

I think it would be acceptable if the hellfire was capable of locking on to anything traveling up to say 350km and the Vikhr capable of locking on to anthing traveling up to about 650km but with a weaker warhead (I know its rated to 800km but the scale of our islands and combat kind of limits the speeds most people use in game). I think this would a good start. If anyone's capable of producing a more realistic solution I'd say go for that instead.

So lets here what people think are the most important factors when comparing the two missiles, in our gameplay environment. And if known, what CAN actualy be done within engine limitations.

[gsleighter 0]

What about adding a long reload period to ATGMs? If you can't ripple fire ATGMs at multiple targets, it at least helps to approximate the time it takes to acquire and lock a new target, and fire another missile. Since most combat in Arma takes place under 2 km, it could just be the time it takes for the missile to travel that far plus 3 to 5 seconds to reacquire a target.

[Frank-O 0]

What about tandem fire? When I fly a Kamov and I spot an Abrahms, I usually put the reticle inside the lock-on diamond then release 2 Vikhr's to guarantee a kill. 1 just makes it angry.

I like your suggestion, though...simple, elegant, and ends the argument.

[whisper 0]

Vikhr against air as proximity fuze

Hellfire against air must hit

This is what makes all the difference. 90% of A2A missiles hit are by missing the target (hence their name "missile") but damaging with proximity detonation.

A A2A missile hitting its target is highly, highly unlikely. It has been seen, you can find around the web pics of planes coming back from mission with a missile stuck into the airframe, leaving the plane alive because they didn't detonate, as their normal mode of operation is to explode nearby their victim

So a missile relying on hitting its air target is bound to fail.

Again :

- Vikhr as proximity fuze, Hellfire has none.

- Vikhr platform have specific A2A mode for the missile, Hellfire platforms have none

Place your bets on which one is designed to enable air kills, and will get some, and which one will get the odd hit here and there on stationary flyers.

[max power 21]

THe problem is that the Vikhr is 'normally' used to engage air targets because it was meant to.

This is one of the many points where we disagree! The Vikhr is NOT 'normally' used to engage air targets. Like the Hellfire the Vikhr is designed to be an air-to-ground missile not an air-to-air one.

Replying to the question why there's NO "Air-to-Air mode" advertised for the Hellfire which some ask here is IMO because the Hellfire when engaging an aerial target uses the same firing modes that it uses when engaging a tank for example! In fact the TADS/Hellfire or the TSS/Hellfire doesn't diferenciate between a tank or person or a truck or a helicopter or a plane, it's all termal images (when those sensors are in FLIR mode) that are locked by the sensor and the missile (Hellfire) follows the laser pointed into the termal image (gain no matter what image is).

The Shkival, does exactly the same thing as a TADS or TSS when locking an air target, it's a camera that locks a termal image (when in FLIR mode), nothing more nothing less.

The only diference that you see regarding any "Air-to-Air capability" between the Vikhr and Hellfire is that the Vikhr has an "Air-to-Air mode" in which will activate it's Proximity fuze while the Hellfire doesn't have a proximity fuze and doesn't have an "air-to-air mode". Resuming the Hellfire is fired against air targets using the existing air-to-ground modes.

Quote[/b] ]BTW, 'trails were made' does not mean that they were successful means that it does not clearly show that they can be used on aircraft. This, I think, is fairly basic. That conclusion is not logical in the slightest. It neglects the relevant evidence that sometimes tests fail.

The Hellfire isn't a "dumb" weapon and it isn't fired unguided. So if trials were made against air targets this CLEARLY means that:

- It was possible to lock a laser into an air target and fire a Hellfire missile in it's GUIDED state against air targets.

- We don't know what the results were, but if the Hellfire wouldn't be possible to be fired at air targets, I'm 100% sure that such trial would never take place.

-Also like Pathetic_Berserker said, the FACT that helfires can be used to take out choppers and slow moving aircraft is old news, which most that follow military aviation and weaponry for decades already know for a long time.

Finally, just to conclude this thing. People are "complaining" that there isn't anything written that says the "Hellfire can be used against air targets" (which I already explained IMO, why), but those same people have to realise that it's not only important to have written facts about weapons but it's also as important to understand how weapons to work and the mechanincs behind it because noone will ever find all the public data needed to make a realistic simulation using only public available data. Hell, you won't find most of the data about weapons using "public data", that's why an understanding about how these systems works is necessary to model them accuratly and to complete any uncompleted data which happens very often. Actually this discussion about Hellfires is one very small example of this.

They would not have designed it with an air to air mode if they did not intend it to be used.

Further, if you feel that I lack vital knowledge that is essential to me agreeing with you, why don't you find it and educate me. You keep shooting off the hip that you have vastly superior knowledge and I keep asking you to find references and yet you're not really coming up with any. I'm afraid I can't accept any argument that's based on your claim to have special knowledge. Either you're an insider, and you give us your credentials, or the knowledge you have is public access.

If they are testing something, the don't know of its success. They're evaluating it based on some criteria. It may succeed or fail to meet these criteria. Because they are testing it does not mean that it's going to automatically pass and be an acceptable air to air missile, period. If it was an acceptable air to air missile, you think you would read about it somewhere. If it's not, it shouldn't be air lockable in ArmA, I don't think.

I think that we can both look back on the references that I pulled up and realize that the shkval, for whatever reason, whether it is for the tuning the flir, activating some computer, or activating the proximity fuze in the vikhr, has an air to air mode.

[subs17 9]

The real issue isn't the fuse its actually the manouverability of the missile and its ability to hit what is available in Arma. A hovering helicopter or one thats just taken off or about to land or a low speed pass by a fixed wing jet is a possible target. Anything else is highly unlikely.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

I'm thinking along the same lines as you there subs.

AA only uses proximity fuses because the chances of a direct hit on such fast moving targets is extremely difficult.

Though the hellfire isn't effective in the role of AA doesn't mean it isn't effective in the role of directly hitting any target traveling less than 'x' kph.

[USSRsniper 0]

What about adding a long reload period to ATGMs? If you can't ripple fire ATGMs at multiple targets, it at least helps to approximate the time it takes to acquire and lock a new target, and fire another missile. Since most combat in Arma takes place under 2 km, it could just be the time it takes for the missile to travel that far plus 3 to 5 seconds to reacquire a target.

Reload time is good, until ARMA doesn't get good avionics.. Such as beign able to use shkval in the cockpit without pressing V key, and when you lock on using it it tracks the target. maybe in far future BIS game will have advanced avionics. So with them speed of engaging muliple targets depends on the skill of the pilot.