KA50 can shoot down aircraft in ArmA why?

[walker 0]

Hi all

To gsleighter as I pointed out in the very first post of this thread the shkval sytem used by the KA50 for the VIKhR missiles can track 4 targets at the same time. So the [TAB] button in ArmA is not an inaccurate simulation of what the KA50 can do in that sense.

Kind Regards walker

[USSRsniper 0]

Hi all

To gsleighter as I pointed out in the very first post of this thread the shkval sytem used by the KA50 for the VIKhR missiles can track 4 targets at the same time. So the [TAB] button in ArmA is not an inaccurate simulation of what the KA50 can do in that sense.

Kind Regards walker

Tracking 4 targets, but what about spending few minutes just to set it up    In Lock On Flaming Cliffs it wasn't easy, but in DCS black shark, you msut press tons of buttons to make it work  

Also about alser overheating, on shkval you can over ride it and continue using it, but then cooling time increases...

[NoRailgunner 0]

...and again comparing apples and oranges: do air combat simulations have such an land combat like ArmA?

Imho some people arguing about because they "only" like to play with balanced stuff and don't want to get used to different tactics. Like little kids "If they have something better, I must have it too..." and "US Forces always win" etc.

Have a look for example into Mandoble's Missile scripts make mission with them or ask your personal mission creator to produce better balanced missions.

[Neon Samurai 0]

Well having read through this thread I have to comment that though the vikhr can attack aerial targets, it would probably be very ineffective at anything not moving slow and straight.

For one thing it is not a dedicated air to air missile, it is a anti armor missile. The Russians however love to make their equipment as multi functional as they possibly can and added a secondary ability for it to engage aircraft. However it does not have any of the key design features necessary for a good AtA missile.

Its a bit slow for a short range AtA missile, most AtA missiles do mach 2.5 or higher. The slower speed of the vikhr means that it will drop out of the sky a lot sooner against a maneuvering target then a stinger or similar would.

Also the 2D control surfaces would give it very poor maneuverability. For the weapon to hit anything in a 3D world it needs to have its characteristic spiral flight profile. However the problem with 2D controls is that it can only turn towards its target at absolute best half the time (when the control fins are almost lateral to the target). Now this maneuverability is sufficient for engaging moving ground targets, but completely inadequate for engaging fast moving air targets.

Those two things along with a good guidance system are the most important things for a good AtA missile. It needs to be able to completely outrun and out turn its target to succeed in hitting it.

So in summary though the vihkr can indeed hit air targets (at least bombers flying less then 300 knots while wings level). It stands almost no chance against a jet fighter unless the pilot is asleep. It would probably also not be very effective on a maneuvering helicopter going at full speed as well. If it was such an effective air to air missile, why would the KA-50 also mount the AA-11 Archer and Igla-V?

Now on to the Hellfire..

First off lets look at if the AH-1Z can target aircraft using its avionics. The answer is it can, but it would have difficulty with fast moving jets. FLIR is more then capable of targeting and tracking helicopters (I'm going to ignore jets for the simple reason that a hellfire would never hit a jet unless it was parked on the ground) day or night and even against ground clutter. Helicopters produce more heat then a running tank and easily show up on FLIR which would allow the system to lock on and track the target. As for the comment that it would be difficult to pan FLIR on a moving helicopter to lock on, its very easy to do if you slave the FLIR to the helmet mounted sight. Also I would point out that virtually every single high fidelity helicopter sim to date has allowed FLIR to track other helicopters. As for lasing the target, if you can track it in FLIR you can lase it (how do you think the gun is aimed with the correct range in air combat? Its done using the laser to range the target, and the target is usually locked up in FLIR first unless the pilot is making a snap shot using the helmet sight).

Ok now the Hellfire itself. The Hellfire is not an AtA missile, It was never designed to be even as a secondary purpose, so of course it's not listed as being an AtA weapon. This does not mean that it is unable to engage helicopters, just that it was not designed to do so. For an anti tank missile its fairly agile, it's flight envelope (http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/hellfire-trajectory1.gif)

would also let it engage targets higher then it, and it is fast enough to catch helicopters if fired close enough. Helicopters do reflect enough laser light for it to track the target (lots of vertical surfaces and painted metal, plus it would be difficult to range them for gun shots if they didn't reflect laser light).

Personally I think could defiantly engage helicopters, but would not be super effective vs fast moving ones. It could only be done in LOBL (lock on before launch) mode, LOAL wouldn't work well due to the flight profile it uses before locking on. Most true helicopter sims (Gunship series, longbow 1&2, Enemy Engaged series, etc) have also thought the same and allowed hellfires to engage and destroy helicopters, and they presumably have done far more research into the subject then any of us here have. FLIR can defiantly lock on to helicopters and lase them, and the missile's flight profile in LOAL would allow it to lock and track the target. Only question is if the missile can reach the target, and maneuver enough to hit it.

Anyhow this post is getting long so I'm going to wrap it up. IMHO the hellfire should be able to engage helicopters in ArmA, as should the vikhr. Both should be very inaccurate against fast moving targets with almost no chance of hitting them (anything going faster then 250-300kts), quite accurate against slow moving helicopters, and moderately accurate vs fast moving helicopters. The argument that the vikhr is an effective AtA missile just because its has the sub designation, has a proximity fuse, etc plus it shot down a bomber which was flying straight with its gear down (and from the video I've seen was flying close to stall speed) does not prove in the slightest that its any good at all in that role (heck I could have shot that bomber down with folding fin rockets if i was close enough).

[ricnunes 0]

That's exactly what I meant Neon Samurai but with the diference that you really sum it up very well and explained it much better than I did.

Just want to add one thing about the Vikhr hitting that Tu-16 on that Youtube video so that I can reply to the following question from Barely-injured:

"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?"

That Vikhr versus Tu-16 situation was the best case scenario that you can ever simulate and basically ANY guided missile that can be aimed to that aircraft would definitly hit it! There's nothing better to hit than a huge target, flying straight and very slow and very close, which was exactly what that situation was! Even a missile like the TOW for example could hit that target.

So I'm 100% sure that a Hellfire would have the same probabilities of hitting that Tu-16 (in that situation) as the Vikhr has.

Actually the Vikhr seems to hit that Tu-16 by contact rather than by proximity.

[max power 21]

@Neon Samurai

The references seem to say that the vikhr can hit maneuvering air targets (helicopters and fixed wing) travelling up to 600 km/h.

[subs17 9]

Hi all

To gsleighter as I pointed out in the very first post of this thread the shkval sytem used by the KA50 for the VIKhR missiles can track 4 targets at the same time. So the [TAB] button in ArmA is not an inaccurate simulation of what the KA50 can do in that sense.

Kind Regards walker

No it can't you can only engage one target at a time using the Shivkal. To engage two tgts you have to launch the 2nd pair right after the 1st and then switch to tgt 2 after impact. There is only one laser so 4 tgts might be able to be tracked but only one can be engaged unless someone is buddy lasing tgts 3 and 4 and even if they could I have yet to read of any sort of laser id code for Vhkrs. And thats only from med altitude with an SU25T.

Note the gimbal limits.

[max power 21]

It would be nice in arma to be able to have some missiles fly toward only your currently active target.

[frederf 0]

I did just that by making the Hellfire into a laser tracking missile and then you have to have the gunner keep the laserdesignator on the target until its completion. Was trying to simulate Hellfire A's with mapfact's AH-64.

[maddogx 13]

It looks like we've been running in circles here.

From what I can tell, there is no doubt that the Vikhr can be used to engage air targets. The problem lies mainly with the implementation in ArmA - the missile is way too agile and accurate. If this could be remedied so that it was no longer the one missilie to pwn all others, I'm guessing most of the complaints would go away.

Right now you can get in a KA50, press TAB - fire - TAB - fire - TAB - fire .... and be pretty sure to take out half the battlefield.

[MehMan 0]

Yes. And perhaps model it's flight path correctly.

[NoRailgunner 0]

All depends on mission design too and what the creator know about proper "ArmA - AA defense".

Like Franze said use of additional missiles in ArmA is limited. So only workarounds eg. Vikhr with decreased air-to-air hit ratio (50/50) on fast moving aircrafts and better use & placement of AA defense (vehicles, static, manpads, air cover) in missions should work.

[ricnunes 0]

It looks like we've been running in circles here.

From what I can tell, there is no doubt that the Vikhr can be used to engage air targets. The problem lies mainly with the implementation in ArmA - the missile is way too agile and accurate. If this could be remedied so that it was no longer the one missilie to pwn all others, I'm guessing most of the complaints would go away.

Right now you can get in a KA50, press TAB - fire - TAB - fire - TAB - fire .... and be pretty sure to take out half the battlefield.

That's not the only problem here. The "other problem" is that if the Vikhr can in Armed Assault lock air targets the Hellfire should be able to do the same since like it was proved here it can.

Of course that when implementing an "air lock" ability to the Hellfire, caution must be taken so that the Hellfire isn't too accurate/effective like curently happens with the Vikhr. But this must be done so that the Hellfire doesn't loose none it's accuracy/effectiveness against the ground targets which is perhaps the best of it's kind (better than the Vikhr for example).

And also like you said the Vikhr's accuracy/effectiveness must be drastically reduced.

[ricnunes 0]

@Neon Samurai

The references seem to say that the vikhr can hit maneuvering air targets (helicopters and fixed wing) travelling up to 600 km/h.

No, those sources say that the Vikhr can hit targets at 600 Km/h, it doesn't say that the target can be manouvering! I won't go again with the fact that the flight profile of the Vikhr isn't good at all for hitting manouring aircraft, point of which was already WELL EXPLAINED and which was accepted by basically everyone here except you.

Secondly with a risk of entering a perhaps more "sensitive area", it's well known that the Russian sources about their hardware (in this case weaponry) is often way over optimistic and this Vikhr case seems to be just one of those too many cases.

For example I remember some time ago while researching information about fighter aircraft radar ranges that while the American and European sources measure the maximum range of a radar by it's capability of detecting a F-16 sized fighter while the Russians measure the maximum range of THEIR radars by it's capability of detecting a 747 comercial plane or B-52 sized aircraft!

With this you have the Russian sources saying that their radars (for fighter aircraft) have bigger ranges than their Western counterparts, while very often this isn't true!

[whisper 0]

The argument that the vikhr is an effective AtA missile just because its has the sub designation, has a proximity fuse, etc plus it shot down a bomber which was flying straight with its gear down (and from the video I've seen was flying close to stall speed) does not prove in the slightest that its any good at all in that role (heck I could have shot that bomber down with folding fin rockets if i was close enough).

No one is saying it should be "good " at it, quite the contrary.

We all agree the current system in ArmA is too easy and too accurate.

As for myself, I still have more than doubts about the ability for a hellfire platform to achieve what the Vikhr/Shkval system can do (even so the Vikhr is doing it badly) because of the lack of A2A engagement mode and lack of proximity fuze.

That's why I'm still very doubtfull about putting a airLock on hellfire.

[NoRailgunner 0]

I don't see any proven fact here from ricnunes only speculations and some ideas on how to balance and advance all Hellfire specs over Vikhr's ones. Maybe a bit stubborn sometimes? Take it easy, enjoy the variety of weapons and tactics. Other games have only huge Hollywood effects and corridor shooter gamplay. sth. about Hellfire

Quote[/b] ]In the early 1990s, the Hellfire missile was even evaluated for use against low-speed aerial targets (i.e. helicopters) in both surface-to-air and air-to-air applications. However, these studies did not result in operational anti-helicopter Hellfire missiles.

[ricnunes 0]

I don't see any proven fact here from ricnunes only speculations and some ideas on how to balance and advance all Hellfire specs over Vikhr's ones. Maybe a bit stubborn sometimes? Take it easy, enjoy the variety of weapons and tactics. sth. about Hellfire

Quote[/b] ]In the early 1990s, the Hellfire missile was even evaluated for use against low-speed aerial targets (i.e. helicopters) in both surface-to-air and air-to-air applications. However, these studies did not result in operational anti-helicopter Hellfire missiles.

Speculation that a TADS can lock an air target? Speculation that a laser can be pointed at an aerial target?

What you call speculation, I call reality and facts. There was more than enough evidence presented here that a TADS can lock air targets and laser can be pointed at air targets! In fact the Shkval system which everyone knows that aims the Vikhr is a "TADS". With "TADS", I mean it's an optical system that locks a targets by pointing the system "crosshair" into the target's image (again for the 1000th time, doesn't matter if it's tank or a helicopter)

Quote[/b] ]Other games have only huge Hollywood effects and corridor shooter gamplay.

Really??    Do you have the notion that the games you are calling "corridor shooter gamplay"and that we refered to are Jane's Longbow 2 and Enemy Engaged which are far more realistic than what Armed Assault will EVER BE and as opposed to Armed Assault are HELICOPTER SIMULATORS?

If I were you I would be carefull when mentioning those other games and calling them unrealistic!

[Daniel 0]

Quote[/b] ]However, these studies did not result in operational anti-helicopter Hellfire missiles.

Totally agree with ricnunes. Just because something isn't done, probably because another much more capable system is present, doesn't mean for one minute that it isn't possible to some extent. I see no reason to argue against very limited and tweaked air capability for both these missiles.

I also vouch for a much more involved sytem of locking as opposed to the instaneous tab spamming we can do at the moment - which isn't really fun for anyone, let alone being unrealistic.

[ricnunes 0]

As for myself, I still have more than doubts about the ability for a hellfire platform to achieve what the Vikhr/Shkval system can do (even so the Vikhr is doing it badly) because of the lack of A2A engagement mode and lack of proximity fuze.

That's why I'm still very doubtfull about putting a airLock on hellfire.

As I previously said while the Vikhr has an advantage against the Hellfire because it has a proximity fuze/fragmentation warhead the Hellfire has an advantage against the Vikhr because it's more agile and more precise (also big advantages if you want to hit an air target) and we could go on with this, over and over.

Anyway, if the devs think that fuze/fragmentation is a better advantage than agility/better precision while hitting an air target than make the Vikhr slightly more effective against the air targets than the Hellfire. But this is a diferent thing than the ability to lock air targets. So resuming:

In real life the Hellfire (together with an optical targeting system like the Apache TADS or the AH-1Z TSS) can lock an air target so this ability must also be included in ArmA, simple as that!

If the missile can hit a fast moving aircraft or not, it's an another thing.

[whisper 0]

Daniel @ May 30 2008,18:39)]I see no reason to argue against very limited and tweaked air capability for both these missiles.

Well, for me it's mainly the abscence of dedicated air-to-air mode in hellfire launch and guidance platform, when it is apparently present in Vikhr case, and absence of proximity fuze for hellfire, which is imho the main drawback.

EDIT : indeed we can go on forever about this I'm just stating my opinion

[ricnunes 0]

Daniel @ May 30 2008,18:39)]Just because something isn't done, probably because another much more capable system is present, doesn't mean for one minute that it isn't possible to some extent.

Exactly! Also don't forget that the Hellfire missile is a quite expensive missile, so if there are another better air-to-air weapons and usually less expensive (like for example a Stinger or Sidewinder) those dedicated system will definitly be used instead of the Hellfire. But again like [CAS] Daniel said, this doesn't mean that the Hellfire can be fired an hit an air target.

[ricnunes 0]

Daniel @ May 30 2008,18:39)]I see no reason to argue against very limited and tweaked air capability for both these missiles.

Well, for me it's mainly the abscence of dedicated air-to-air mode in hellfire launch and guidance platform, when it is apparently present in Vikhr case, and absence of proximity fuze for hellfire, which is imho the main drawback.

Like I previously said the "abscence of dedicated air-to-air mode" in the Hellfire is that when a Hellfire is launch against an air target, it uses the same mode as when engaging for example a tank.

There's no diferent mode(s) for the Hellfire to use when engaging air targets than when it engages ground targets!

[Daniel 0]

Daniel @ May 30 2008,18:39)]I see no reason to argue against very limited and tweaked air capability for both these missiles.

Well, for me it's mainly the abscence of dedicated air-to-air mode in hellfire launch and guidance platform, when it is apparently present in Vikhr case, and absence of proximity fuze for hellfire, which is imho the main drawback.

EDIT : indeed we can go on forever about this I'm just stating my opinion

Hehe, yeah, does seem to be going in circles.

But yeah, the hellfire lacks a proximity fuse which means only a direct hit that detonated would be of much effect. However, the Vikhr apparently lacks the manouverability needed to adapt to fast movers.

So perhaps maybe a reduced manouverability Vikhr and a non-proximity fused Hellfire might be the answer.

Of course dedicated anti-air missiles would be preferable. But when has war ever been straight forward? And as I said, both seem possible to an extent, I don't think anyones claiming they'd be the first weapon of choice.

[MehMan 0]

Well yeah, but the whole targeting system would have to be redone, which isn't going to happen.

Much of the effectiveness of helicopters and aircraft in ArmA would be reduced if the silly tab-fire system, which is very archaic, would be removed. As it is, BF2 does a better job at simulating TV guided missiles on helicopters.

[max power 21]

@Neon Samurai

The references seem to say that the vikhr can hit maneuvering air targets (helicopters and fixed wing) travelling up to 600 km/h.

No, those sources say that the Vikhr can hit targets at 600 Km/h, it doesn't say that the target can be manouvering! I won't go again with the fact that the flight profile of the Vikhr isn't good at all for hitting manouring aircraft, point of which was already WELL EXPLAINED and which was accepted by basically everyone here except you.

Secondly with a risk of entering a perhaps more "sensitive area", it's well known that the Russian sources about their hardware (in this case weaponry) is often way over optimistic and this Vikhr case seems to be just one of those too many cases.

For example I remember some time ago while researching information about fighter aircraft radar ranges that while the American and European sources measure the maximum range of a radar by it's capability of detecting a F-16 sized fighter while the Russians measure the maximum range of THEIR radars by it's capability of detecting a 747 comercial plane or B-52 sized aircraft!

With this you have the Russian sources saying that their radars (for fighter aircraft) have bigger ranges than their Western counterparts, while very often this isn't true!

I'll concede that they don't say that they can hit maneuvering air targets up to 600 km/h. That was a pretty careless mash together of two statements on my part. One source says up to 800 km/h, 600 km/h if it's a rendezvous tack, and another says 'rapid, maneuvering helicopters and heavy aircraft'.

This situation you're describing here is a problem of comparing differing standards. We are not comparing differing standards here. We are reading statements. Whatever 'rapid, maneuvering aircraft' means, the vikhr is said to be able to hit them, as well as air targets of up to 800 km/h.

Regarding your premise that the vikhr is inaccurate given its method of flight, this is original research conducted by you in your mind, and I reject it based on that. If you can show me some actual information I would be glad to accept it. For now, the sources state that the vikhr has an accuracy of .5 meters. A spiral flight path would seem to me to be inefficient, given that the missile would always be at a slight angle of attack incurring drag, but this missile seems to have a range of 10 km. This is the longest range helicopter launched antitank missile I've ever heard of, especially considering it doesn't have a ballistic flight path. Add to that the fact that it's supersonic, much faster than any other anti tank missile I've heard of. It can't be that inefficient. If you are flying line of sight toward someone how is turning and burning, it actually doesn't take very much to keep yourself pointed at him. Modern military helicopters by and large are only capable of pulling 3 gs at any rate. I'm not insisting that the vikhr can hit any air target at any time, only that it is a dual purpose missile meant to hit air targets by design (and therefore should be air lockable in arma).

Anyways, since they can be used for what they were designed for, to be a dual purpose missile, they should be air lockable in ArmA. Should they be as precise as they are in ArmA? This is contestable. The sources seem to say that they are quite accurate and capable, despite your thought-experiments that tell you otherwise. Most of this is academic anyways considering ArmA's missiles aren't the most true to life missile simulations, to say the least. To say that the hellfire is at least equal to the task and therefore should also be air lockable is not supported by any information that we have seen. I think we have thoroughly explored this subject, and I think that if there were any sources that supported your argument, you probably would have found them.

I'm going to retire from participation in this discussion and I'll rejoin it when you or someone else has some new information to share.