KA50 can shoot down aircraft in ArmA why?

[subs17 9]

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

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

1- The Hellfire can also engage Air targets

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

If you're talking about slow moving or hovering helicopters maybe anything else highly unlikely. In fact the deadliest A/A weapon on the Apache is its gun. There used to be mounts for AAMs such as Stinger and Sidewinder but they have since been taken off. Hellfire is not an AAM, and the Vhkr has only very limited A/A capability.

[ricnunes 0]

If you're talking about slow moving or hovering helicopters maybe anything else highly unlikely. In fact the deadliest A/A weapon on the Apache is its gun. There used to be mounts for AAMs such as Stinger and Sidewinder but they have since been taken off. Hellfire is not an AAM, and the Vhkr has only very limited A/A capability.

Exactly, not only the Hellfire but also the Vikhr have only a chance to hit slow moving aircraft and hovering helos.

Both the Hellfire and the Vikhr are not AAMs.

Both the Hellfire and the Vikhr have very limited A/A capability.

And applying this to ArmA, we should have in the game the following:

-> Or a player/AI is able to lock air targets with BOTH MISSILES (Hellfire and Vikhr), but for this BIS have to reduce drastically the effectiveness of those missiles when engaging air targets while maintaing the effectiveness against the ground targets (not sure if this is a "easy" task to do, even for BIS)

-> Or a player/AI cannot lock air targets with BOTH MISSILES (Hellfire and Vikhr) like we had in 1.09 and previous versions of ArmA and Operation Flashpoint.

-> BUT NEVER, having one missile (no matter which of the two) than can lock air targets while the other can't!! This is main objective of my posts here.

[gsleighter 0]

Balance isn't the reason for designing games like Arma, though. Otherwise, SLA would have an equivalent to the little birds, and Blufor would have a real equivalent to the BMP (Thanks Vilas!.

You have to think of new ways to create balance. I could see the KA-50 becoming too potent in Warfare as an issue, but they could always jack up the price in the next update.

[max power 21]

Exactly, not only the Hellfire but also the Vikhr have only a chance to hit slow moving aircraft and hovering helos.

Both the Hellfire and the Vikhr are not AAMs.

Both the Hellfire and the Vikhr have very limited A/A capability.

And applying this to ArmA, we should have in the game the following:

-> Or a player/AI is able to lock air targets with BOTH MISSILES (Hellfire and Vikhr), but for this BIS have to reduce drastically the effectiveness of those missiles when engaging air targets while maintaing the effectiveness against the ground targets (not sure if this is a "easy" task to do, even for BIS)

-> Or a player/AI cannot lock air targets with BOTH MISSILES (Hellfire and Vikhr) like we had in 1.09 and previous versions of ArmA and Operation Flashpoint.

-> BUT NEVER, having one missile (no matter which of the two) than can lock air targets while the other can't!! This is main objective of my posts here.

I think you are quite wrong. The vikhr has much more AA capability because it was designed with it in mind. It has a proximity detonation mode with fragmentation effects. It is a dual purpose missile. The hellfire is not a dual purpose missile. Furthermore, I've seen videos of a vikhr hitting a flying jet (drone). You should not be able to lock on to aircraft with the hellfire because it was not deisgned for it. The vikhr was, therefore you should.

Quote[/b] ]

The multi-purpose warhead (two-stage HEAT and an additional fragmentation belt) allows the missile to be used against armoured, airborne and area targets alike. This is an asset compared to the three different missiles required in the 9M120 Ataka-V complex. The use of the proximity fuze allows a near miss of up to 5 m and makes it possible to engage an air target at speeds of 500m/s.

From wikipedia. Unfortunately I can't get to their sources, which is Jane's military publications, and FAS is confused about the vikhr / ataka-v thing. If you believe this information, 500 m/s is 1800 km/h. The top speed of the missile is 600 m/s, or Mach 1.8. The AA capability if the vikhr may be limited, but it is not as limited as the hellfire which is virtually non-existent.

[walker 0]

Hi all

On that last point gsleighter

There is a simple solution to enemy air assets of any description.

Fixed AA missile launchers at the base plus squads of guys with stingers.

The Afghans taught the Russians this game with the stinger against the helicopters and Vietcong taught Americans this game with cheap AKs and RPGs against megabucks B52s and Huey's and the Russians taught the Germans this game with their cheap mass produced T34s against the expensive Tigers and the Brits taught the French this game with their cheap yeoman Bowmen against expensive uperclass Knights and the Mongols taught the Chinese this game with cheap bow and arrow horsemen against the Great Wall and on and on through history.

Stalin said it best

"Numbers have a quality all of their own."

In the 3 hour Warfare MP I just finished the OPFOR bleed their base to death buying expensive KA50s

We just sat and took their attacks taking out expensive KA50 after expensive KA50 till they ran out of funds and then we went in on the ground and took it and held it.

This is the inevitable lesson of Iraq and something I and others pointed out on this forum and in other places when we first went in to Iraq. It is feet on the ground that wins wars not hi tech kit. High tech kit wins battles and engagements but it is politics and feet on the ground exerting your will that win wars. Rumsfeld and his bunch of idiots nobs were getting it wrong right from the start.

That is why so many of the USAs most experienced generals were sacked or made to resign. This is a fundamental lesson of military history and they were trying to tell some one who had never fought in a war how you won them but Rumsfeld and his nobs were too thick to listen.

Thank Darwin the voters sacked Rumsfeld and his nobs.

And in ArmA people make the same mistakes they see the shiny birds and want them because they think it will make them gods, well they are up in the sky for 5 minutes then the get a rocket up the ass from some grunt on the ground.

It happens in Warfare and it happens in Berzerk the side that goes for the expensive birds as their solution always loose as the map goes the other sides colour.

Because to win you must hold the ground and you cannot do that from the sky hell you cannot even do it from a car. That is why bobbies on the beat are so much more effective than patrol cars. That is why Petraeus took the troops out of the hummers and put them on foot patrols.

Kind Regards walker

[subs17 9]

Walker that has very little to do with what we're talking about here.

[gsleighter 0]

It just had a lot to do with the last game of warfare I played. We were opfor, pushing out with armor, probing to find the Blue MHQ, and five blufor guys went air, buying AH-1's and AH-6's to locate our MHQ. Bought a KA-50, cut through all their expensive helicopters to find their MHQ and win the game. Their air defense was two M163's, nothing else. They put all their eggs in one expensive basket, and left themselves wide open. A bunch of guys with stingers running around, and I wouldn't have owned South Sahrani with one helicopter. And AA soldiers cost about 10 percent of what a helicopter costs.

Walker's point is that you can't play until you can afford air, and then all 16 people on both sides get choppers, you have to control territory to create a viable defense against air threats, armor threats, infantry threats, and if you throw all your resources into very expensive helicopters without devoting anything to defense, one KA-50's going to be all it takes to end the game.

[max power 21]

It seems to me that a sensible AA defence would be all that is needed to end this rein of terror.

[ricnunes 0]

I think you are quite wrong.  The vikhr has much more AA capability because it was designed with it in mind.  It has a proximity detonation mode with fragmentation effects.  It is a dual purpose missile.  The hellfire is not a dual purpose missile.  Furthermore, I've seen videos of a vikhr hitting a flying jet (drone).  You should not be able to lock on to aircraft with the hellfire because it was not deisgned for it. The vikhr was, therefore you should.

Like I previously said in a post here, yes the Vikhr has an advantage against the Hellfire when engaging aerial targets due to having a proximity fuze and fragmentation warhead.

BUT the Hellfire has an advantage over the Vikhr when engaging aerial targets because it's clearly more agile than the Vikhr (a very important feature for any missile that pretends to hit an aerial target) and also more precise than the Vikhr. Clearly the Vikhr's flight trajectory (SPIRAL) and having only 2D CONTROL SURFACES are NOT ideal to engage aerial targets!

Furthermore, and while the Hellfire doesn't have a proximity fuze and fragmentation warhead the Hellfire is not only more precise than the Vikhr but it's a extremelly precise weapon and with some luck it can hit through the window of a building!

Read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AGM-114_Hellfire

So if it can hit through the window of a building than it can certainly hit a flying aircraft if the target aircraft is flying either slow, not manouvering much or flying towards or directly away from the launching aircraft.

Also, during Desert Storm (1991) a F-15E managed to Kill a Mi-8 helicopter which was in flight with a Laser Guided BOMB! Read here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-15_Eagle

Probably that Mi-8 was flying slow but nevertheless it was hit by a Laser Guided (Semi-Active Laser Guided) weapon which is not propelled (a gliding weapon), so if a Laser guided bomb which is not propelled can hit a flying aircraft a Laser Guided Propelled weapon like the Hellfire can hit it much better!

You say that "I'm quite wrong" with my statements but the truth is that you don't know for sure if the Vikhr is better than the Hellfire while engaging aerial targets and I don't know if the Hellfire is better than the Vikhr (again while engaging aerial targets). The truth is that no-one knows for sure which of both missiles is the best while engaging aerial targets!

We only know that both missiles can engage aerial targets, and that's a real fact and that's why if BIS decided to gave to Vikhr a capability to engage aerial targets it should also give it the Hellfire, NOT for balance as some seem to suggest that this is all about, but for REALISM!

Finally, and perhaps the "strongest" argumentation that the Vikhr is better (than the Hellfire) at engaging aerial targets is because there is a video in youtube that shows a "gigantic" Tu-16 drone (yes, the target aircraft is a very large Tu-16 heavy bomber) which is flying slowly, straight and directly away from the launching aircraft which doesn't indicate any awesome or even a good air-to-air capability. I'm 100% sure and willing to bet anything that a Hellfire could hit that same aircraft in that same conditions as well! Hell, perhaps even a TOW could hit that target in those conditions!

That my friend, are the ideal conditions for ANY missile (even for missiles that weren't designed to be air-to-air missiles) to hit an aircraft -> Very large target; Slow moving target; Straight flying target; Moving directly away from the launching aircraft.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In simple words plaintiff1 yes!

Specifically to SUBS17 I was pointing out what plaintiff1 just said in simple words. I said it with historical and present day examples, yes the KA50 question in ArmA is a complex one. ArmA is primarily a "Realistic battlefield simulation"

And to all

Like all simulations ArmA tries to get close to reality but of course no simulation can be 100 percent accurate nor would we want it to. Otherwise all the ArmA/OFP1 players would be long dead. In my case somewhere between where the deuce and half dropped us off and the brow of that hill just before Houdan on Malden in the demo.

ArmA gets so close to reality it teaches us many simple military facts such as “GET DOWN!†is the basic SOP for surprise enemy contact, yes I know it gets more complex but when you are a noob that is all you need to know. And at a strategic level one of those fundamental facts is over reliance on tech will loose you a war. Another is the fundamental importance of feet on the ground the inimitable grunt; this is something generals have been learning in staff college and unfortunately for the stupid with thousands of real lives on the battlefield for centuries.

Part of this thread is about the underlying concept of balance in ArmA and another is the accuracy of the simulation in ArmA.

On the matter of Balance.

Simple fact the real worlds weapons are not fare and balanced. It is a fundamental part of ArmA that it also is not balanced. Oh Dear. How sad. Never mind.

On the matter accuracy of simulation

Yes SUBS17 there are questions of effectiveness of military kit in this thread such as the KA50 with VIKhRs and how well we can simulate it in ArmA, hell I started it! In ArmA we have to rely on public data on what are inevitable commercial and military secrets or misted in weapons manufactures marketing spam; such as the exact flight envelope of a particular aircraft or the parameters of its weapons systems. I know for certain people on this forum it must be frustrating as you know what the reality is but you have to keep you mouth shut as it is OPSEC or because you work for an involved party, the best solution is to just laugh at all the tin soldier geeks.

Never the less people do the best they can. There are limitations in all simulations on what you can accurately simulate so often the answer is a compromise and part of reaching the compromise is discussions on this forum.

All of us are fighting our corners hard for one purpose to maintain ArmA as the best battlefield simulation there is.

Plain fact no other game is as good. Part of the reason for that is the community and threads like this.

Kind Regards walker

[max power 21]

Ricunes, should laser guided bombs be lockable on aircraft, then?

I do know that the vikhr was designed in the antiaircraft role, and the hellfire was not. Therefore, the vikhr should be air lockable, and the hellfire should not. This is my argument. It has nothing to do with what's possible on an off chance, on a hovering helicopter, maybe once it happened, somebody said one time that it should be possible under the right circumstances. I'm talking about a jet moving at mach 1.5, consistent air kills, and capability by design of the missile and the sighting system.

[subs17 9]

It just had a lot to do with the last game of warfare I played. We were opfor, pushing out with armor, probing to find the Blue MHQ, and five blufor guys went air, buying AH-1's and AH-6's to locate our MHQ. Bought a KA-50, cut through all their expensive helicopters to find their MHQ and win the game. Their air defense was two M163's, nothing else. They put all their eggs in one expensive basket, and left themselves wide open. A bunch of guys with stingers running around, and I wouldn't have owned South Sahrani with one helicopter. And AA soldiers cost about 10 percent of what a helicopter costs.

Walker's point is that you can't play until you can afford air, and then all 16 people on both sides get choppers, you have to control territory to create a viable defense against air threats, armor threats, infantry threats, and if you throw all your resources into very expensive helicopters without devoting anything to defense, one KA-50's going to be all it takes to end the game.

That will only work if the mod you are playing limits the number of KA50s you can have(financially). And as for your approach its no surprise since you can pick off the Vulcans with your Vhikrs.

[ricnunes 0]

I do know that the vikhr was designed in the antiaircraft role, and the hellfire was not.  Therefore, the vikhr should be air lockable, and the hellfire should not.  This is my argument.  It has nothing to do with what's possible on an off chance, on a hovering helicopter, maybe once it happened, somebody said one time that it should be possible under the right circumstances.  I'm talking about a jet moving at mach 1.5, consistent air kills, and capability by design of the missile and the sighting system.

First, the Vikhr was NOT designed for anti-aircraft role! The Vikhr is and was designed as an AIR-TO-GROUND roles, just like the Hellfire is.

Secondly the Vikhr will never hit jet moving at mach 1.5, NEVER ON THIS PLANET!

Thirdly, the Vikhr is not capable of consistent air kills! The Vikhr will never hit a fast moving aerial targets and manouvering aerial targets.

Fourth, the Vikhr is an "air-to-air" missile just like the Hellfire is! Which means that NONE of those missiles will hit an aerial target unless the air target is flying slow and not manouvering much.

Replying to you question: "Ricunes, should laser guided bombs be lockable on aircraft, then?"

Simple, IMO NONE of two missiles (Vikhr and Hellfire) should lock air targets, but if the capability was added to the Vikhr than IT MUST be given to the Hellfire as well, because they are afterall two similar missiles (in terms of roles) and because of all the reasons that I previous posted and because the Hellfire is an "air-to-air" like the Vikhr is.

The Laser guided bomb was to give an example that the Hellfire can hit aerial targets even if it doesn't have a proximity fuze/fragmentation warhead.

[subs17 9]

You say that "I'm quite wrong" with my statements but the truth is that you don't know for sure if the Vikhr is better than the Hellfire while engaging aerial targets and I don't know if the Hellfire is better than the Vikhr (again while engaging aerial targets). The truth is that no-one knows for sure which of both missiles is the best while engaging aerial targets!

We only know that both missiles can engage aerial targets, and that's a real fact and that's why if BIS decided to gave to Vikhr a capability to engage aerial targets it should also give it the Hellfire, NOT for balance as some seem to suggest that this is all about, but for REALISM!

Finally, and perhaps the "strongest" argumentation that the Vikhr is better (than the Hellfire) at engaging aerial targets is because there is a video in youtube that shows a "gigantic" Tu-16 drone (yes, the target aircraft is a very large Tu-16 heavy bomber) which is flying slowly, straight and directly away from the launching aircraft which doesn't indicate any awesome or even a good air-to-air capability. I'm 100% sure and willing to bet anything that a Hellfire could hit that same aircraft in that same conditions as well! Hell, perhaps even a TOW could hit that target in those conditions!

That my friend, are the ideal conditions for ANY missile (even for missiles that weren't designed to be air-to-air missiles) to hit an aircraft -> Very large target; Slow moving target; Straight flying target; Moving directly away from the launching aircraft.

You would remove realism by making the Hellfire capable of hitting aircraft. If they modeled an MFD view for both AH1 and KA50 so that pilots had to lock manually the ground tgt and then lase and fire it would fix this issue. Since the Vhikr can hit a slow moving air target the pilot would still have to manually guide the missile so it would happen quite rarely in MP if that were to happen. As for your point on the LGBs that was just a lucky shot its not the same as firing a laser guided anti-tank missile at an A-10. Of course its possible to lock a parked or taxiing aircraft theres no issue with that as it is missiles are quite arcadish in Arma as far as aircraft are concerned but hopefully Arma2 might feature improvements in this area.

[ricnunes 0]

You would remove realism by making the Hellfire capable of hitting aircraft. If they modeled an MFD view for both AH1 and KA50 so that pilots had to lock manually the ground tgt and then lase and fire it would fix this issue. Since the Vhikr can hit a slow moving air target the pilot would still have to manually guide the missile so it would happen quite rarely in MP if that were to happen. As for your point on the LGBs that was just a lucky shot its not the same as firing a laser guided anti-tank missile at an A-10. Of course its possible to lock a parked or taxiing aircraft theres no issue with that as it is missiles are quite arcadish in Arma as far as aircraft are concerned but hopefully Arma2 might feature improvements in this area.

Well according to what you're saying of which part makes sense than you would also remove realism by making the Vikhr capable of hitting aircraft! In reality the Vikhr hits enemy aircraft the same way the Hellfire does!

The point about the LGBs was only to demonstrate that if laser guided bombs can hit aerial targets, the Hellfire can do that more easily (afterall it's a propelled missile).

One point that I previously mentioned is that in the most realistic and dedicated helicopter sim made for PC which is Jane's Longbow 2 and and other sim which is becoming closer to Jane's Longbow 2 realism which is Enemy Engaged with mods do allow for air targets to locked and engaged with Hellfire missiles! Any of those two sims are way more realistic than ArmA, so if BIS decided to allow the Vikhr to engage air targets they must do the same with Hellfires!

Or again, maintain how it was and don't allow any of those missiles to engage (lock) air targets.

[Barely-injured 0]

ricnunes, nobody is disputing the fact that the hellfire can engage air target but what is being argued is its effectiveness since it is a dedicated air to surface missile with no PRACTICLE air to air engagement role. What is meant by that is that yes a hellfire can engage an air target but it would be just as good at doing so as say an AT-6 Shturm can engage an air target or as good as a TOW can engage an air target or even as good as a tank shell from a modern MBT can engage an air target.

Now practically that means that you can engage helicopters that are either coming into or coming out of a hover hold (to give you an idea of the speed).

To say that the vikhr have even similar performance is not true as the missile has many features in its design (as explained in walker's nice first post) that facilitate engaging faster targets and while nobody is saying that this will enable it to engage high performance aircrafts pulling heavy G's evasive maneuvers, the vikhr should be relatively comfortable in engaging helicopters traveling in a straight line in operational speeds. Not to mention that as plaintiff1 said the targeting system on the Ka-50 actually facilitates engaging air targets in the first place.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Vikhr variants

- max effective range ~10km

- effective against ground & air targets at converging speeds to 800 km/h

Hellfire variants

- max effective range ~8km

- effective against ground targets

Goals and objectives of military developments are not to produce balanced hardware and software.

Developing such an game like ArmA is imho to walk on a tightrope. On one side small group of simulation fans on the other the bigger group of fun/shooter gamers.

btw

What about any kind of transport ship and plane - did anyone consider how tanks, helicopters etc. will take part in combat on islands?

[walker 0]

Hi all

I will say it again:

War ain't fare and neither is ArmA.

As Battery Sergeant Major Tudor Brynne 'Shut Up' Williams said: "Oh Dear. How sad. Never mind."

If you want balance do it in the mission editor ArmA is so flexible that there are millions of ways to balance a mission. Or use the tactics that beat the imbalance. A special forces team can beat a platoon by choosing how to fight them.

The whole modern concept of asymmetric warfare is how does the weaker side deal with a technically superior foe.

The whole concept of modern info war is how does a technical advantage beat a numerically superior foe.

Mission balance in ArmA/OFP1 has never been about both sides having the same weapons. What use is a special forces A&D mission if you both have the same number of troops, with the same weapons, facing each other across a football pitch with few sandbags on it?

Today I played 3 hours of warfare followed by a 1 hour special forces coop and two x 1 hour purposley imbalanced A&D company and platoon sized battles. The sides were not balanced but the missions were at least in the we had a chance sense and even if they were not we all had fun!

We played 3 platoons of Abraham's against 2 companies of T72s with the Zeus ESP mod on Schmalfelden island. It was FUN! We then had an Infantry platoon defend against an mechanised company in close terrain. It was FUN!

Fun has never been about balance.

Kind regards walker

[max power 21]

First, the Vikhr was NOT designed for anti-aircraft role! The Vikhr is and was designed as an AIR-TO-GROUND roles, just like the Hellfire is.

Secondly the Vikhr will never hit jet moving at mach 1.5, NEVER ON THIS PLANET!

Thirdly, the Vikhr is not capable of consistent air kills! The Vikhr will never hit a fast moving aerial targets and manouvering aerial targets.

Fourth, the Vikhr is an "air-to-air" missile just like the Hellfire is! Which means that NONE of those missiles will hit an aerial target unless the air target is flying slow and not manouvering much.

The Laser guided bomb was to give an example that the Hellfire can hit aerial targets even if it doesn't have a proximity fuze/fragmentation warhead.

Show me your references. I've showed you mine. I reject all of your premises because there is no evidence that I'm aware of to support them.

edit: I found more references. These say 600 km/h rather than wikipedia's 600 m/s or whatever it was.

Quote[/b] ]

The 9M127 Vikhr missile has a maximum range of up to 10,000m, while the 30mm rapid fire cannon has a maximum range of up to 4,000m. Both weapons can be used to engage air and surface targets with a very high hit probability.

http://www.janes.com/extract/jdu99/jdu00122.html

Quote[/b] ]

The missile is fired from launchers containing a 6-8 pack. Its guidance system combines radio-command guidance during the initial flight stage followed by laser-beam guidance afterwards. The missile is a supersonic one with a 8-10 km range, its caliber is 125 mm, and its weight together with the launcher is 60 kg. The two-stage shaped-charge warhead is capable of piercing armor of equivalent to 900 mm thickness.

With the switch set in the appropriate position on the pilot's panel in the cockpit, the Vikhr operates as an air-to-air missile with a radar turn-on for approach navigation. It is effective against airborne targets flying at speeds up to 800 km/h (600 km/h during rendezvous tacks).

http://warfare.ru/?lang=&linkid=1666&catid=261

Quote[/b] ]

Shkval day/night automatic sight systemconstituting an optical radar with 23 power magnification of a target andterrain, including a system used for the search, identification, trackingand target designation for Vikhr missiles and weapons with laser guidancesystem, featuring 0.6 m guidance precision;

However, the Vikhr antitank missile is the main versatile weapon of the Su-39. The aircraft is armed with 16 such missiles capable of directly hitting a moving tank at a 10 km range featuring up to one meter of reduced armoring, rapid boats, rapid maneuvering helicopters and heavy aircraft.

http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1612&catid=256

It and the shkval were designed to have this capability. You are purely wrong, my friend. Totally wrong.

[subs17 9]

Well according to what you're saying of which part makes sense than you would also remove realism by making the Vikhr capable of hitting aircraft! In reality the Vikhr hits enemy aircraft the same way the Hellfire does!

The point about the LGBs was only to demonstrate that if laser guided bombs can hit aerial targets, the Hellfire can do that more easily (afterall it's a propelled missile).

One point that I previously mentioned is that in the most realistic and dedicated helicopter sim made for PC which is Jane's Longbow 2 and and other sim which is becoming closer to Jane's Longbow 2 realism which is Enemy Engaged with mods do allow for air targets to locked and engaged with Hellfire missiles! Any of those two sims are way more realistic than ArmA, so if BIS decided to allow the Vikhr to engage air targets they must do the same with Hellfires!

Or again, maintain how it was and don't allow any of those missiles to engage (lock) air targets.

Firstly the LGB

Quote[/b] ]* According to book 'Lightning in the Storm' the "OH-58 Kiowa-like" Iraqi helicopter was just lifting off when it was hit by a Hellfire missile.

Quote[/b] ]The lead F-15E of a formation of two (from the 335th) acquired a helicopter unloading Iraqi soldiers through the FLIR pod and released a GBU-10. After 30 seconds, the F-15E crew thought the bomb had missed its target and the pilot was about to use a Sidewinder missile instead, but suddenly the Hind helicopter was vaporized. The Special Forces team estimated that the Hind was roughly 800 feet (240 m) over the ground when the 2,000 lb (910 kg) bomb hit its target.[11] But the air-to-air kill was not recognized until November 2, 2001. They tried to engage the other helicopters but an allied bombing started around the F-15E so the pilot decided to get out.[8]

Both cases are aircraft taking off and then getting hit by the GBU or Hellfire. I think the vhikr probably functions differently from the Hellfire as it probably can still track the tgt if its above the KA50 unlike the Hellfire which would be limited by the FLIRs limits. The Ka50 also has a helmet mounted sight which would allow for better A/A with the missile. One can only speculate though as to the real performance of both missiles but i think ED will cover both in the DCS series so you might get a clue as to just how effective both might be IRL based on the data they are using. Janes LB2 only allowed for A/A kills with Hellfires that were slow moving like helicopters etc. It still sort of made the launch process unrealistic since the player didn't manually lock the tgt as you do with the SU25T in FC it was more cycle all tgts with a key like Arma. Not really a good candidate as far as examples of realistic weapons employment.(in fact its closer to Armas process than lockon is still a good sim though) Another thing that you have to think about for both the AH1 and the KA50 pilots would probably not use Hellfire or vhikrs for A/A they would post likely use a heater or the gun IRL or rely on CAP. Its not about balance its about realism as far as I see it. Maybe limiting the vhikrs to low aspect low speed tgts and hellfires to slow moving(taxiing) or stationary/hovering aircraft.

[Inkslinger 1]

Sry I'm I didnt read this whole thread and I'm not really sure which varient we really have in game but it reads as the AH1-Z, which in fact is a new Viper not a Cobra. the Viper does have AA capabilities and can be equipped with sidewinders. Again I'm not really sure if thats what they intended in game but the model looks very much like the Marine Viper.

[walker 0]

Hi Inkslinger

The topic has several themes.

Why in ArmA the VIKhRs equipped KA50 can shoot down aircraft and the Hellfire equipped AH1-Z in ArmA (incorrectly listed in ArmA as the Cobra) is less effective in this roll. I summarised this in the first post.

Obviously AH1-Z, should as you say be described as the Viper not the Cobra though most people on sight would ID it as of the Cobra class. It is after all still based on the dear old Huey airframe and is 80% parts compatible with it. And I believe ID-ed as the Cobra initialy.

At the time ArmA was produced (2 years ago now but add another year for production) AH1-Z was just a test project with the USMC and while not yet approved for full-rate production, August 2008 is decision due date, only a limited number of test variants 3 or 4 helicopters are in use to date. So it could be argued to be a future helicopter.

The AIM9 has been test-fired with the AH1Z

http://somd.com/news/headlines/2005/2047.shtml

That said the weapons layout that the AH1Z can carry are even to this date are not finalised. I think there is argument for AH1-Z to be equipped with AAIM-9 in ArmA but can the AH1Z carry AIM-9 and Hellfire at the same time? If so how many of each?

According to this article

Quote[/b] ]...The AH-1Z for the USMC will be armed with: 16 Hellfire missiles, six AIM-9 Sidewinder air-to-air missiles, 70mm rocket pods (7- and 19-shot), and a 20mm gun...

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/supcobra/

All those at once? Can the AH1Z carry the AIM-9 at the same time as the Hellfire?

Clearly a MOD of the AH1Z in ArmA can solve the problem of equipping the AH1Z with AIM-9 but again it comes down to what weapons layout?

Then we come down to ArmA balance something I always like to to say is the world ain't fare and neither is ArmA. Oh Dear. How sad. Never mind.

In the Warfare Mission all the good players like to play on the weaker side. That makes it more of a challenge.

And ArmA players relish a challenge.

Kind Regards walker

[lugiahua 26]

It's Viper in ArmA...

Cobar has only two blades and Viper has four like UH-1Y Venom

Also only Viper has digital screens and 2 hard points on each wings.

BTW, I support to add AIM-9X on Viper but it's not relate to this topic anyway...

About the loadout of Viper I read on Wiki are:

M197 20mmX750

HellFire X8 (4 on each)

FFAR X38 (19 on each)

AIM-9X X2 (one on each)

so the only difference from BIS is to add two sidewinders on wingtip..

another out topic question, why the USMC use Viper while Army still using UH-60A in ArmA? lol

[walker 0]

another out topic question, why the USMC use Viper while Army still using UH-60A in ArmA? lol

Hi Lugiahua

Parts commonality with the Huey

Does not require massive change of training (very expensive to change )

Keeps logistics and maintenance the same. (very expensive to change)

TWO ENGINES required for sea operations

Tried and tested tech.

Cost

Does the Job

Kind regards walker

[lugiahua 26]

another out topic question, why the USMC use Viper while Army still using UH-60A in ArmA? lol

Hi Lugiahua

Parts commonality with the Huey

Does not require massive change of training (very expensive to change )

Keeps logistics and maintenance the same. (very expensive to change)

TWO ENGINES required for sea operations

Tried and tested tech.

Cost

Does the Job

Kind regards walker

I know problems in reality..

But I think in ArmA, they should give Army UH-60M instead of outdated UH-60A...