KA50 can shoot down aircraft in ArmA why?

[ricnunes 0]

lmao, ric.  Video. 30 fps. Sidewinder airspeed Mach2.5. Vikhr airspeed Mach 1.8.

The analogy is like using a Polaroid to take a picture of Japan's bullet train, and claim it teleports.

Proximity fuses.  You know the thing that helped us win the war in WWII?

Sidewinder uses a magnetic proximity fuse.  You see it better in "Behind Enemy Lines".  That's a modern AA missile detonating.  Please fact check before posting.

Like I previous said, my point was only to show that a missile can hit and kill an enemy aircraft by contact. To support this fact, air-to-air missiles also have contact fuzes and not only proximity ones.

"Behind Enemy Lines", is that movie where the same missile (which was supposed to be a SA-13 Surface-to-Air missile) behave like a guided-torpedo on steroids, right?  

[max power 21]

Quote[/b] ]

First of all, ridiculous is your granny!

Nice one?

Quote[/b] ]

Secondly if you want to argue with me or with anyone do it with respect! I disagree with the vast majority of your points but never called them ridiculous because I must respect others points of view even if i think they are ridiculous too like yours, so I reply to any points including yours with respect and I apreciate that you do the same of else I think you should leave the discussion.

The premise is ridiculous. I did not say that you are ridiculous.

Quote[/b] ]Third, I never said that the Hellfire was/is a "fine" A2A weapon. Actually I said that both the Hellfire and Vikhr are NOT "fine" A2A weapons and their ability to engage aerial targets is very limited (again for both the Vikhr and Hellfire), specially if the air target is flying either fast or manouvering hard.

And my argument is that the two are not analogous.

Quote[/b] ]

One can argue that the missile seen hitting aircraft in History's Channel dogfight series may be "theatrical" or that missiles detonate so near an enemy aircraft that we can't tell if it was a contact or proximity detonation.

Never the less, that show is not an acceptible resource for the information that you were getting from it. For who, what, where, and when, and probably the general flow of the dogfight and how the pilots felt, it is great. For details like this, I'm not so sure.

Quote[/b] ]

But while I may have deviated a bit from my course here, my point wasn't to support if most kills are done by contact versus proximity or vice-versa but instead my point supported with the previous links that I gave together with the facts that A2A or anti-air missile have hit enemy aircraft in combat and due to a failure in the detonator returned inside the targeted aircraft are more than proofs that missile can hit and destroy air targets BY CONTACT!

Sure they have, but this is neither here nor there. It doesn't support your argument. If a missile hits the target directly it's because the proximity warhead failed and the conditions were right for a direct hit.

Quote[/b] ]

This is also one more proof that the Hellfire while not having a proximity fuze and/or fragmentation warhead can still kill an enemy aircraft!

So can a large bird. Big deal.

Quote[/b] ]

So this together with the fact that the Hellfire has a good agility for an air-to-ground missile (better than the Vikhr in this regard) and excelent precision are more than enough evidences that support that the Hellfire can hit slow moving aircraft, and everyone seems to see and accept this except you!

My argument is that it shouldn't be air lockable in arma since it was not designed to have an air to air capability, as the vikhr was. The hellfire has many more serious air to air shortcomings by design, and arma is an all or nothing deal. If anything, the vikhr should not be air lockable. But, since most air to air combat is within its envelope of up to 800 km/h, 600 for manoeuvring aircraft, and all missiles in the game are over represented in terms of their target acquisition and tracking capability, the air to air vikhr is not as offencive an idea as an air to air hellfire. And, regardless of your thought experiments of the manoeuvrability of the vikhr, the sources still say upwards of 90 percent hit probability on ground targets, and high precision on air targets. You have not presented any dissenting information other than your own rationale, and I'm sure that it's no insult to you that I go with the specifications rather than your ideas on this, regardless of the obvious benefit of over-representing the actual numbers. If you were to present dissenting information in the form of a technical paper, I would read it immediately and in detail. If you have in the past, I have missed it, and will gladly go back and read it.

Quote[/b] ]

The video can also in no way be used to say that the Vikhr is an effective anti-air weapon like you claim, or even like some sources claim. But one thing is sure, a Hellfire could hit that Tu-16 as well as the Vikhr! And NO that Tu-16 wasn't definitly flying fast, for starters it had it's landing gear extended, so no way it was flying fast

I do not claim it. Several sources do. Good call on the landing gear, I read those vertical, black shapes as part of the shkval hud in the past.

Quote[/b] ]

Also, while not clear enough it seems to me by looking into that video that the Tu-16 flaps were also extended.

Anyway, due to the extended landing gear that Tu-16 was definitly much nearer to the stall speed than it was from 1000km/h!

I must concede that point, and that the video would be a milk run for many missiles. I'm not convinced that the hellfire could have reliably made that shot, though, since the reticle was pointed at a place below the horizontal stabilizers, the hellfire would not have been able to see a laser reflecting off of that point on the fuselage in a top attack profile.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Basically BIS can only improve different armament (AA and AG missiles) of planes and helicopters in ArmA and Arma2. Now you have to make some kind of workarounds in mission design to "balance" this Kamov advantage. Solution = vote/petition for using more and different weapons on all vehicles!

But discussion will stay if (all) US weapons ingame should be superior to russians or other nations - patriots & propaganda.

[pathetic_berserker 4]

ricnunes,

Your arguments regarding the Hellfire Vs Vikhr performance has done a great deal to inform people and highlight the problems with the way BIS has handled missiles and missile avoidance systems.

However I'm finding that your argument is sounding more like 'Helfire is as good as if not better than Vikhr' just for the sake of having the Hellfire equal the Vikhr within the gameplay of Arma.

And although I agree with you that the Hellfire has a very limited capability when it comes to AA. I think you need to consider a few more points.

1. How important is it that the hellfire should lock on to air targets given (a)It's not particulary good at taking them out, and (b) Given probable engine limitations a realistic performance solution could be unlikely.

2. Your argument that the Vikhr, like the Hellfire is not an effective AA missile. Seems a bit off the objective centre. Please let me explain.

Its true that the Vikhr is not a dedicated AA misslie and should not then perform like one. But to imply that the Vikhr is not a good AA missile therefore the hellfire should be a 'not good AA missile' as well is totaly flawed. All the evidence points to the Vihkr being a better AA missile that the Hellfire.

The claims that the Vihkr can be used as an AA missile seem to be at least substantiated to some degree. Where as your (I believe well informed) deduction that the Hellfire should be used as an AA missile leaves us with little more than conjecture as to how it should be implemented (if at all).

I know that even 'official' information can less than totaly truthfull. But at the end of day we have more of it supporting the Vihkrs abilities than you have of supporting your ideal that the Hellfires AA capabilities are good enough to include in game (remembering that 'Arma' is never going to be a 'Longbow' )

Now you've probably read my earlier sugestions, so you'd that on broad terms I more or less support your idea. But there may be one other solution that I would conceed and thats. The Vihks ability is reduced and the Hellfire doesn't get to lock to air targets.

Simply because the lack of any realistic performance data of the hellfire used as a AA misisle wich could be even vaguely translated into a solution for Arma.

(though I'd still prefer the Hellfire to lock on to anything moving less than 250kph and Vikhrs less than 650kph)

[ricnunes 0]

Pathetic_Berserker,

First of all, I'm not against the possibility that the Vikhr could be or is better than the Hellfire while engaging air targets, this I don't disagree and this is a point that I previously concede.

But I'm totally against that the Vikhr has the capability to lock air targets while the Hellfire don't, afterall both missiles lock air targets exactly the same way.

My inicial statement that the 'Helfire is as good as if not better than Vikhr' may not be correct, but the fact is that the Hellfire has advantages over the Vikhr when engaging air targets by having better agility and better precision (while the Vikhr is better in terms of speed and by having a Proximity fuze/Fragmentation warhead).

Also some say that the Vikhr has the advantage over the Hellfire in terms of speed, That's correct, but don't forget that the Vikhr flies in a spiral trajectory, which means that the distance it travels from point A to B is longer than a missile which has a more direct trajectory, like the Hellfire. This certainly will in the end limit the time it takes for the missile to travel from point A to B, thus limiting it's "true speed". I'm NOY saying that the Vikhr isn't still faster than the Hellfire but the Vikhr may not as fast as many people seem to believe and again this spiral flight trajectory works against the Vikhr when engaging air targets.

While most of my sources don't directly say that "the Hellfire can engage air targets" I presented more than enough evidences that clearly indicates that the Hellfire can engage air targets (slow moving ones, of course). But even so I presented one source that directly indicates that the Hellfire can engage air targets here:

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

This presentation, is a work made for the University Of Wisconsin at Madison.

And also there's the fact that far more realistic simulations than ArmA like Jane's Longbow2 and Enemy Engaged (specially modded) model this capability in the Hellfire. And again I find odd that some people don't want an air lock capability for the Hellfire when far more realistic simulation than ArmA models such capability!

So don't get me wrong, but it's a stupidity to give the ability for the Vikhr to engage air targets while the Hellfire don't. Since both missiles lock air targets the same way, in ArmA we should be able to lock air targets with both Vikhr and Hellfire. If BIS decides to make the Vikhr better than the Hellfire when engaging air targets than fine to me, but never at the expense of making the Vikhr air lockable while the Hellfire don't!

Also and since the ability to lock air targets was given to the Vikhr it should be given to the Javelin as well (but that's an another story). Anything diferent is simply unrealistic!

OR, simply remove the ability for the Vikhr to lock air targets and leave the Hellfire as it is now.

But I'm strongly against the fact that the Vikhr can lock air targets while the Hellfire don't! Fortunally there's a mod out there that removes the ability for the Vikhr to lock air targets which I currently use. But I would like to see a better "official" solution. It's simply unrealistic to give one missile the ability to lock air targets while the other don't!

[ricnunes 0]

I'm not convinced that the hellfire could have reliably made that shot, though, since the reticle was pointed at a place below the horizontal stabilizers, the hellfire would not have been able to see a laser reflecting off of that point on the fuselage in a top attack profile.

So are you saying that if the laser is aimed in certain areas of a tank like for example between the wheels, the Hellfire wouldn't hit the tank because you have the treads and part of the chassis above the laser point, right? Well that's a bit stupid don't you think?

Anyway, the hellfire follows the radiation emited by the laser refected in the surface of the targets so even if the laser point is "hidden" from the missile, the radiation reflected by the laser point isn't and I'm absolutelly sure that since the Hellfire doesn't have any problems locking a laser refected in a tank, buildings and all sorts of ground targets, it wouldn't also problems locking a laser refected in an aircraft as well!

Regading to your 90% accuracy of the Vikhr, don't forget that is the accuracy of the Vikhr against a STATIC GROUND target. The accuracy against a moving ground target will certainly be quite less than 90%, actually it is quite less that the Vikhr is usually fired in pairs as opposed to the Hellfire which only one is usually fired against one target. Also the precision of the Hellfire against both static and moving ground targets is basically 100%, which means that the Hellfire should have a good chance of hitting a slow flying aircraft such as an helicopter.

Quote[/b] ]If a missile hits the target directly it's because the proximity warhead failed and the conditions were right for a direct hit.

It means that a missile can directly hit an air target, so IN REAL LIFE:

1- The Hellfire can "lock" air targets

2- Have suficient agility and speed to follow slow moving ones such as a helicopter (NOT fast jets, of course)

3- A missile can hit an air target and detonate by contact (even if it doesn't have proximity fuses and fragmentation warhead)

So what's your problem, with the Hellfire locking air targets???

[NoRailgunner 0]

Ahhh, one main "reason" revealed for all kind of game balancing discussions:

Quote[/b] ]It's simply unrealistic to give one missile the ability to lock air targets while the other don't!

I know some PvP players always moan and say that they only like to play if all sides have the same characteristics of weapons, vehicles etc. The Kamov armed only with Vikhr has little advantage to engage flying aircraft and the Cobra armed only with Hellfire not. All you can argue with BIS is that the Vikhr ingame should have only 50/50 chance to destroy fast flying planes.

In theory the Hellfire maybe could engage aircraft but pilots irl wouldn't be that stupid to fly in such hostile territory without air cover, some AA missiles and proper working countermeasure system

[ricnunes 0]

In theory the Hellfire maybe could engage aircraft but pilots irl wouldn't be that stupid to fly in such hostile territory without air cover, some AA missiles and proper working countermeasure system  

Same rules applies to pilots flying Ka-50s armed with Vikhr  

Anyway, here's a link to an OFFICIAL US NAVY page that directly says that the Hellfire is capable of engaging air targets:

http://www.navy.mil/navydat....00&ct=2

I hope this is more than enough to convince everyone that the Hellfire can be used against air targets!

[max power 21]

So are you saying that if the laser is aimed in certain areas of a tank like for example between the wheels, the Hellfire wouldn't hit the tank because you have the treads and part of the chassis above the laser point, right? Well that's a bit stupid don't you think?

No, I'm saying if the helicopter was underneath a flying tank, shining its laser into its belly, that a top attack missile would lose the laser. No, I don't think that's stupid. The hellfire was designed to be designated from above, not below, and the hellfire missile must be fired within 60 degrees of the laser light from each side, representing a 120 degree cone from the laser point on the target. I'm talking about parts of the machine obstructing the laser. If you were to shine a laser into the front flaps of a tent and then launch a top attack missile at it, that the missile be able to find the laser?

[ShrubMiK 0]

The active radar missile warning system and overal ECM/ESM system I was referring to was a British one...can't find any real info on it right now, will continue to look.

Except that it ("Zeus") is mentioned in the very last line of this document! http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/docs/eccmp.htm

Here's a US one though:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-alq-153.htm

[subs17 9]

RWR detects the radar type and mode from aircraft, search radars and SAM tracking radars. Another thing used to confuse IR missiles is an IR jammer which burns the seeker out by using a laser. The IR jammers are good against rear aspect missiles like the igla but I doubt it would work against a modern manpad. Missile detection is normally by visually spotting the missile launch from either the pilot or wingman. There is no magic gadget that tells you a IR missile has been launched like in most arcade games. Its a passive homing system that does not give you warning of a launch.

[Frank-O 0]

Sorry ric, but have you gone to the manufacturer's web site? Even the Longbow L version (fire and forget) does not list aircraft as a valid target type.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/HellfireII/index.html

Given the choice between the navy site, and the manufacturer's, it's your truthiness to decide which one to believe.

Here's what you do. Find a modder that will;

1. Introduce "loaded" FM so that maneuverability, rate of climb is influenced by your wpn loadout.

2. Add 2 sidewinders to the Cobra as an alternate to just the hellfire armed Cobra

3. Add 2 R73 to the Black Shark as an alternate loadout

or

Introduce a "gear" interface to aircraft and helo's so that the player can decide what munitions he's going to carry in his sortie before take-off.

I've already documented Vikhr misses on high speed cobras at distance on the Warfare 1.5 topic. Get the modder to phase in a higher miss % at distance for the Vikhr.

***

Addendum

introduce a 24 sec lock on delay (diamond symbol taking time to position inside the acquisition lock) for the Vikhr.

for Each AA missile armed, take away 2 AT missiles.

***

Anyone not happy with this solution?

[Tipsi 0]

Franco:

1. Very Very Very hard to do.

2. YES

3. YES

I've been following this thread for quite a while now and I think that BIS's idea to introduce the Vikhr as an AA weapon is ridiculous.

Yes, in real life they can take air targets down... but they dont take air targets down by pressing a magical tab button to lock onto it and then fire, with 90% chance of hitting fast moving harriers/A-10's at an ArmA BVR... Because ArmA's locking and missle ballistics is so simplistic, it would be better to make the Vikhr as an air to ground ONLY weapon. Only when BIS put time and effort (and I bet it needs alot of it) to create a realistic model of missle ballistics which is comparable to Falcon 4, should we consider to make the Vikhr A2A capable. If ArmA had missle ballistics which were more accurate/realistic and the Vikhr was A2A capable, then the missle ballistics would allow the Vikhr to deal with slow moving choppers, but struggle with or not hit fast aircraft.

At the moment, the tab locking of aircraft and lack of any countermeasures for planes/heli's does not reflect realistic gameplay.

It seems to me BIS just saw "Can be used against Aircraft" attached to the Vikhr and without any real thought, popped it in ArmA and made it A2A.

Frank-O's suggestions 2 & 3 seem the best thing to do.

OR: Instead of alternating loadouts, just add poper A2A missles to every chopper loadout. (but of course then you'll have choppers taking out Su-34's and Harriers, which may be realistic, but choppers would never really face situations where they had a chance against enemy jets).

[maddogx 13]

The only thing that's really ridiculous right now is the maneuverability of lockable missiles. At least I'm pretty sure a real KA50 can't lock onto an aircraft behind it, then have the missile turn 180° on a dime to hit it. Similar goes for the Hellfire and tanks. It has been demonstrated several times that missiles in ArmA will perform pretty outrageous maneuvers to hit their targets.

So the first thing that should be done is to reduce missilie maneuverability. Once that is done, the problem will have very nearly disappeared.

[ShrubMiK 0]

<SUBS17>"RWR detects the radar type and mode from aircraft...There is no magic gadget that tells you a IR missile has been launched like in most arcade games. Its a passive homing system that does not give you warning of a launch...."

You seem to be talking about 1970's technology. There's more to a modern EW suite than simply an RWR.

It is possible to detect an in-flight missile by a variety of means, even if that missile uses passive guidance? It's just another aircraft after all, albeit a small, fast one.

Detecting a luanch would be useful knowledge, but more important is detecting that an missile is likely to impact your aircraft in the next 5 seconds, and that if you have not already spotted it and deployed countermeasures you should do so right now.

Re. launch detection:

Even if the missile itself uses totally passive guidance, you may be able to infer a launch by detecting the changing mode of the aircraft or SAM radar. If it's a MANPAD...well you can't do that. But maybe you can identify a new heat source from the ground as the missile launches.

[whisper 0]

<SUBS17>"RWR detects the radar type and mode from aircraft...There is no magic gadget that tells you a IR missile has been launched like in most arcade games. Its a passive homing system that does not give you warning of a launch...."

You seem to be talking about 1970's technology. There's more to a modern EW suite than simply an RWR.

It is possible to detect an in-flight missile by a variety of means, even if that missile uses passive guidance? It's just another aircraft after all, albeit a small, fast one.

Detecting a luanch would be useful knowledge, but more important is detecting that an missile is likely to impact your aircraft in the next 5 seconds, and that if you have not already spotted it and deployed countermeasures you should do so right now.

Re. launch detection:

Even if the missile itself uses totally passive guidance, you may be able to infer a launch by detecting the changing mode of the aircraft or SAM radar. If it's a MANPAD...well you can't do that. But maybe you can identify a new heat source from the ground as the missile launches.

As far as I know, these new warning systems are not fielded yet

[Tipsi 0]

Yeh, I was about to say that IR Warning Recievers arent fielded for jet fighters in my previous post (edit), but i don't have any evidence to support my argument :P. However there is no evidence to support they are fielded.

At least F-16's don't have them.

My only explaination would be:

1. Jet fighters these days are VERY RARELY in situations where IR missles are used against them. (mainly because of the now-heavy use of LGB bombs which allow their deployment well away from range of IR SAM missles.)

In Air to Air combat, IR missles are rarely used since this would invoke dogfighting, which is extremely dangerous and it would be better to run and live than to stay and fight.

2. I wouldnt understand how it could distinguish between friendly IR missles being fired from behind you and enemy missles being fired from behind... Therefore giving false warnings.

"It is possible to detect an in-flight missile by a variety of means, even if that missile uses passive guidance? It's just another aircraft after all, albeit a small, fast one."

Its not that simple though is it? Yes we can spot aircraft but by using very powerful and large radar. If you want a radar to give 360degree coverage of the aircraft to detect an approaching missle (which, like you said, is very very small). Then your going to need an even more powerful radar and a bigger one to give you the 360degree coverage range arent you?: Very very pricey and unpractical.

"Detecting a luanch would be useful knowledge, but more important is detecting that an missile is likely to impact your aircraft in the next 5 seconds, and that if you have not already spotted it and deployed countermeasures you should do so right now."

Yes detecting a launch is useful, but detecting a missle that is going to impact in the next 5 seconds is less useful. Countermeasures such as chaffs and flares are not magic missle spoofing technology. You could dispence your whole chaff and flare ordinance and still get hit when the missle is 5 seconds away. Especially since latest missle technology is improving.

Wouldnt it be better to find out incoming missles as soon as they are launched? This will give you extra priceless seconds to deal with the incoming missles.

This is why its so much safer to engage targets BVR:

1. You know where the enemy is (in front of you).

2. You know if the enemy is "pinging you" (detecting you)

3. You know if the enemy is locking on to you (so missle launch is very very likely).

4. Since its BVR (long range) you have longer time to deal with the missles that may be incoming (because the RWR might not have picked it up, which is most likely the case)

5. Since its BVR (long range) you have longer time to make an evaluated judgement to either attack or run away.

"Re. launch detection:

Even if the missile itself uses totally passive guidance, you may be able to infer a launch by detecting the changing mode of the aircraft or SAM radar. If it's a MANPAD...well you can't do that. But maybe you can identify a new heat source from the ground as the missile launches."

Well whether a manpad is firing or not, if your conducting dangerous bombing runs where you are as close to the enemy for them to be able to launch MANPADS, it is standard procedure to drop chaff and flares.

[Turkmenbashi 0]

Tipsi your argument is invalid as you are a polish curly haired homosexual.

Good day.

[W0lle 1050]

Tipsi your argument is invalid as you are a polish curly haired homosexual.

Good day.

+1 WL and a week vacation from the forums for flaming and namecalling.

[Tipsi 0]

He was only joking

[ricnunes 0]

Sorry ric, but have you gone to the manufacturer's web site?  Even the Longbow L version (fire and forget) does not list aircraft as a valid target type.

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/HellfireII/index.html

Given the choice between the navy site, and the manufacturer's, it's your truthiness to decide which one to believe.

No, really this is too much, I don't know if I shall laugh or simply be astounished with such a post. Let me resume:

-I've explained here, time over time why the Hellfire can engage air targets and how it is done with an extreme detail!

-I've explained that the way that the Vikhr locks air targets is the same as the Hellfire locks those same targets.

-I've posted sites (including Jane's) where Hellfires were tested against air targets.

-I've mencioned Helicopter flight simulations suchas Jane's Apache Longbow 2 which are extremely realistic (and also have the Jane's logo) which allows and models hellfire that can be used against air targets.

Most here accepted those arguments, but from the ones that don't I was countered because my sources weren't "official ones", fine. So I finally post and OFFICIAL site (US Navy) which CLEARLY states that the Hellfire can be used against air targets and you reject that official site simply because the Lockheed Martin web sited doesn't say that the Hellfire can engage air targets when at the same time the US Navy (together with US Army and Marines) that are the ones that fire the missile in ANGER (this means in REAL COMBAT) clearly confirm what I've been saying! Really this is too much, for me. I'm really starting to think that you have something personal against the missile or perhaps against some countries weapon systems, that I don't know of!

Besides the Lockheed Martin site didn't say that the Hellfire CAN'T be used against air targets. It simply doesn't say that Hellfire can engage air targets, there's a very big diference!

It was also said here before that many weapon systems that weren't designed for some purposes may nevertheless be used for those same purposes. The history of military warfare is full of such weapons and some even surpass the expectations when used in roles which weren't designed for, I've also gave examples of this before.

So let me see, the argument that you have because the Hellfire shouldn't engage air targets is that because the Lockheed site doesn't state that it can be used against air targets - where there are so many weapons out there that weren't designed for a purpose but neverthless are used and many times with sucess in those same purposes.

In the other hand we have the US Navy official site, which is one of the branches that use and ALREADY USED and WILL USE the Hellfire in REAL COMBAT, which CLEARLY says that the missile can be used against air targets (even specify which type of air targets)!

So NO NO, this is not a matter of belief, it's a matter of REAL FACTS!

The only one acting on beliefs here is you!

I've already presented more than enough facts that CLEARLY proves that the Hellfire can engage air targets, this is the reality, against reality there are NO arguments. In fact the only reason why I still discuss this is because I paid for ArmA with my very well deserved money and I simply don't want to see this game ruined because there are some out there that think that weapons should act or not act in some way because they DIDN'T READ something in some web page. Again, making realistic simulations goes much more deeper than about informations which isn't included in certain web pages. If you read only what you want in only certain web pages, you WILL NEVER have a true information and never make a REALISTIC simulation!

Quote[/b] ]Here's what you do. Find a modder that will;

1. Introduce "loaded" FM so that maneuverability, rate of climb is influenced by your wpn loadout.

2. Add 2 sidewinders to the Cobra as an alternate to just the hellfire armed Cobra

3. Add 2 R73 to the Black Shark as an alternate loadout

or

Introduce a "gear" interface to aircraft and helo's so that the player can decide what munitions he's going to carry in his sortie before take-off.

I've already documented Vikhr misses on high speed cobras at distance on the Warfare 1.5 topic. Get the modder to phase in a higher miss % at distance for the Vikhr.

***

Addendum

introduce a 24 sec lock on delay (diamond symbol taking time to position inside the acquisition lock) for the Vikhr.

for Each AA missile armed, take away 2 AT missiles.

***

Anyone not happy with this solution?

Here's what you should do:

1. Before stating that a weapons isn't capable of something because you haven't read that, SEARCH and INVESTIGATE instead of making such claims!

2. I bought ArmA just like you did, so I have the right to have my oppinions and one advise: if someone more proves a point, at least be umble and accept it, instead of just opposing because you simply don't want that fact to be true because for some personal reason!

3. I don't want some modder to make the game that I want, even if there are so many very talented modders out there which I deeply respect even because I believe that the game should be the most compatible as possible and while there are many mods out that are awesome, many are not suited for Multiplayer games for example and in the end I want the game (ArmA) to as realistic as possible and if BIS decided to give an anti-air ability to the Vikhr, it must do the same for the hellfire for REALISM SAKE! Or else, just forget those "secondary abilities" that some weapons such as the Vikhr and Hellfire have!

Of course I prefer the most realistic way, where we should have to lock manually using optical targeting sights instead of the "magic TAB" key.

[ricnunes 0]

The active radar missile warning system and overal ECM/ESM system I was referring to was a British one...can't find any real info on it right now, will continue to look.

Except that it ("Zeus") is mentioned in the very last line of this document! http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/docs/eccmp.htm

Here's a US one though:

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/an-alq-153.htm

Thanks for the info ShrubMiK!

[max power 21]

<SUBS17>"RWR detects the radar type and mode from aircraft...There is no magic gadget that tells you a IR missile has been launched like in most arcade games. Its a passive homing system that does not give you warning of a launch...."

You seem to be talking about 1970's technology. There's more to a modern EW suite than simply an RWR.

It is possible to detect an in-flight missile by a variety of means, even if that missile uses passive guidance? It's just another aircraft after all, albeit a small, fast one.

Detecting a luanch would be useful knowledge, but more important is detecting that an missile is likely to impact your aircraft in the next 5 seconds, and that if you have not already spotted it and deployed countermeasures you should do so right now.

Re. launch detection:

Even if the missile itself uses totally passive guidance, you may be able to infer a launch by detecting the changing mode of the aircraft or SAM radar. If it's a MANPAD...well you can't do that. But maybe you can identify a new heat source from the ground as the missile launches.

As far as I know, these new warning systems are not fielded yet

The blackhawk has a system called the AN/AAR-57 Common Missile Warning System [CMWS] which uses electro-optical sensors to detect energy signatures commonly associated with missile launches. It will then give the pilot information as to which sensor detected it and automatically employ countermeasures. Coupled with the AN/ALQ-212 Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures [ATIRCM] which is an infrared and laser jammer, it makes up the Suite of Infrared Countermeasures [sIIRCM]. Evidently it was fielded, and like to give false positive returns, so Black Hawks flying around war zones are constantly popping off flares, so I have read from a Black Hawk pilot.

[subs17 9]

OR: Instead of alternating loadouts, just add poper A2A missles to every chopper loadout. (but of course then you'll have choppers taking out Su-34's and Harriers, which may be realistic, but choppers would never really face situations where they had a chance against enemy jets).

Well IRL the Iran - Iraq war had plenty of A/A action of choppers vs fast movers etc. So it has happened before it just depends on the battlefield and the equipment each side is using.

[NoRailgunner 0]

ricnunes only because you insist your private assumptions here on "Hellfire should be balanced with Vikhr characteristics" doesn't make it better. Some Hellfires were produced on an experimental basis as air to air missiles but these variants are very rare and not in use. USMC Cobra's are still armed with AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles

Workarounds and suggestions have been written but you reject them. Seem to me that you like endless discussions about your own personal balancing preferences. If you really don't like balanced gameplay and stuff - sorry.

(he, evil russians they have developed and use such missiles and this ejection seat...must be the dark side )