ArmA II and KA 50

[Topper Harley 0]

Hi,

i would love to see this Chopper again but theres something i dont want in ArmA II with a KA 50:

In ArmA 1.14 the KA 50 can lock up Airplaynes up to ~ 5000 m

(something like 2600 inch) and kill every Unit (including every Airplane and Vehicle) with only one missle, that makes the KA 50 a way to powerfull weapon. Its even more powerfull than an Harrier AA with 4 AA missles - ok you need also only 1 AA missle to take down a KA 50 but the Chopper / Plane does not explode, so you have a chance to jump out and survive.

Against an KA 50 you have no Chance with an Airplane and that shouldnt be the same in ArmA II.

What are youre experience´s with the KA 50?

[Steakslim 1]

I think the balance of the KA-50 is ment to be directly proportionate to it's real life counterpart. So "nerfing" it is up to BIS's discretion.

[sparks50 0]

This has been discussed many times before, the Vikhr's efficiency on air targets in Arma is not realistic.

[echo1 0]

For the record, I think its going to be the Ka-52 in Ama II...

[Archangel08 0]

What i hated the most about the ka50 is it would take 4+ missles and still not blow up....it may crash but still was able to turn about and launch a missile at u.......

[wolfbite 8]

Well for ArmA2 it needs an ejector seat. As far as I know from source material ( I don't think they suffered any battle damage yet) They are very tough. every system is duplicated in both 50 and 52. It can run without oil for 40 mins.... Very tough armour.

And vikhr has a very hight hit ratio of almost 1 ( Obviously it wont be so high on AA but it is supersonic so it can hit slow moving aerial targets and it has high armour penetration and power)

The gun can lock on and rotate the chopper. The Rocket and Vikhr's can swing up and down 5 degree's. So to be honest the ArmA one is missing a few features in fact.

All I want in arma 2 for choppers is flares though :P

Just what I feel on the situation.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Topper Harley how many times we must see this Kamov 50/52 discussion only because people are bit lazy to search?

"Vikhr" missiles have the ability/function to target aircrafts within 8km.

What most people are missing on air units are proper working countermeasures. Thanks to those people who made flares.

Cross fingers that BIS are implementing userfriendly visual option to change armaments according to mission.

[Alex72 1]

Vikhrs ARE f***ing powerful missiles... Thats how it is. And like NoRailGunner says - they take out ground and air targets. Difference in ARMA was that they stayed locked. In real life you have to have visual to the target as the Vikhr uses the beam rider technology. Aim with laser and keep it on target until impact. As it is point and shoot it can take out anything the pilot can see.

And yes there are countless of topics about this. No need for one more.

[max power 21]

That said, the vikhr should be fairly immune to countermeasures that don't blind the helicopter's camera (like a smoke screen, for instance, would work, but flares or chaff would not).

[wolfbite 8]

Anyone hope that the "Ressilient to countermeasure" on the AA missile info is a hint about anything??

[7 0]

Anyone hope that the "Ressilient to countermeasure" on the AA missile info is a hint about anything??

Maybe.

I wouldn't hope for it though. If you look at it the other way around it could also be an excuse NOT to implement countermeasures.

[wolfbite 8]

*sniff* Your probably right....

[Rocco 0]

Pretty sure that countermeasures will be in, we already have them as a mod and they work perfectly. so there is no reason for BIS not to implement them, they can just reengineer them from our mod :)

[echo1 0]

The problem with counter measures and counter-counter measures is that they aren't perfect, and a lot of it is down to chance. The only fair (and realistic) way of doing it in my mind is having some kind of random probability generation with arbitrarily decides whether the missile hits or not. But that would probably make the whole thing even more pointless...

[max power 21]

I don't know. I played a bit with Mando's missiles on some ACE server and the system seemed to work well. The missiles often seemed to track the flares, but even then the missiles would often damage the aircraft. It seemed to depend a lot on what the target was doing at the time of launch. Often, missiles will damage the aircraft in spite of counter measures, but the pilot is often able to escape for repairs. It works well. I don't know if Mando programmed this behaviour, or if it emerged from the complex system. Either way, guided missiles are still scary and countermeasures provide some level of protection.

[walker 0]

That said, the vikhr should be fairly immune to countermeasures that don't blind the helicopter's camera (like a smoke screen, for instance, would work, but flares or chaff would not).

Hi all

In reply to plaintiff1's

To have any even a remote chance of beating beam rider technology a screen system, smoke or whatever, it would need to fulfill several criteria.

1) Knowledge of lock on:

This unlikely since the lock is via passive systems such as visible light shape designation and recognition and infrared designation and signature recognition as well as light touch non point designator active systems (for air threats not ground) such as the weapon platforms threat radar or even external air search radar illumination or some form of integrated Anti Aircraft Control Station.

This then leaves spotting the incoming missile itself assuming you have a system that can reliably spot and process such a threat the target only has a small time window from launch to impact time to spot and assess and designate the threat direction.

Using an active threat detection system leaves the target open to radiation guided munitions like HARM.

2) Deploy capability to prevent the threat:

Having established a threat you now need to project you screen (smoke or whatever) into the threats path at such a distance that it covers enough of an arc for sufficient a period of duration as to significantly alter the capability of the threat to reach the designated target.

If the target an air asset in flight this would have to be substantial enough to cover flight path. If it was helicopter the screen would have to be projected far enough away not to be affected by wash from the helicopter or of such density that it would persist long enough to negate the effect of the aircraft wash.

3) Not adversely affect the target:

A screen is a multi edged sword. Smoke screens in particular affect the thing it is nearest too most of all. So in the case of a soldier throwing smoke to cover action it is usually more sensible to project the smoke close to the threat. A screen by its visible spectrum blocking capability is a signpost to the projector of the screens position, thus revealing position to other threats.

I do not say such a screen is impossible just that the engineering aspects would be difficult and its efficacy doubtful at best and negative at worst.

That said you are correct to say that a screen is probably one of the few methods that might counter beam-riding weapons. Its effectiveness was amply demonstrated by Hezbollah's effective use of beam rider AT weapons against the Israeli armor in the 2006 Lebanon War.

Add to that the low cost and technological requirements of beam-rider weapons as well as the ability to separate the guidance from the launch site and clearly beam-rider weapons are going to be a significant factor in future conflict.

A good addition to ArmA II would be the ability to order AI to supress smoke or indeed for AI commander to order such. In MP it is common for us to do this as human players.

Kind Regards walker

Edited April 13, 2009 by walker

[volkov956 0]

As long as AI dont ignore smoke screens as they do currently otherwise whats the point again using it with AI

[walker 0]

As long as AI dont ignore smoke screens as they do currently otherwise whats the point again using it with AI

Hi volkov956

Use Ace problem solved

Kind regards walker

[evilnate 0]

One thing that I think would be really awesome (after playing DCS:Blackshark for 6 months) is if the Ka-52/Ka-50 had a actual schvall (spelling). Instead of clicking the "lock next target" button, the user would have to look at his on board monitor and manually lockup targets.

[ricnunes 0]

Topper Harley how many times we must see this Kamov 50/52 discussion only because people are bit lazy to search?

"Vikhr" missiles have the ability/function to target aircrafts within 8km.

What most people are missing on air units are proper working countermeasures. Thanks to those people who made flares.

Cross fingers that BIS are implementing userfriendly visual option to change armaments according to mission.

And how many times we must see these Super Vikhrs that we currently have in ArmA because someone just read that the Vikhr has an "air-to-air ability" and therefore those same ones think that the Vikhr is effective like a sidewinder for example against air targets.

Don't get me wrong but saying that the Vikhr is a very effective missile against air targets is a proof that the one being lazy to search is you and NOT Topper Harley!

Yes, this was discussed several times but unfortunally because of people that either read something on wikipedia and promptly believe without doing some PROPER and further reseach or they are fanatics that think that BIS does everything OK, I decided to post my argumentation all over again since (and like Topper Harley) I don't want to see the same "ridiculously-super-accurate" Vikhrs in ArmA2 like we have in ArmA!

So I will post AGAIN (and with some new data) the following:

1- The Vikhr is NO MORE "Air-to-Air" missile than a Hellfire IS! If it wasn't for the fact that the Vikhr has a proximity detonator and fragmentation warhead the Vikhr would even be less effective than the Hellfire against aerial targets.

2- BEFORE someone posts the same that was posted in a previous thread saying that the Hellfire can't hit or can't be used against aerial targets because they can't read it anywhere PLEASE READ THIS:

http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1991/1991%20-%202942.html

Specially the part where it says:

"Rockwell is proposing its Hellfire laser-guided anti-tank missile in the AAM role. The company believes that Hellfire is a suitable weapon for use against helicopters and slow-moving fixed-wing aircraft that helicopters are likely to encounter. In trials with the Army earlier this year, an AH-64 Apache shot down two of three drone targets using Hellfire; the miss was caused by loss of lock by the laser designator."

And notice that this was done in 1991 with an older variant of the Hellfire, very likelly the AGM-114A version!! Now imagine the newer and much improved AGM-114K version!

3- What I meant with the previous point is that if the Vikhr can target or lock and hit aerial targets in ArmA2 than the Hellfire must be able to do THE EXACT SAME THING!

4- Like it was already said here, countermeasures like flares won't (or very hardly will) defeat a missile such as the Vikhr or the Hellfire. The only way that I see flares defeating a laser guided missile would be if set of flares could be effectivelly be launched and placed between the targetted aircraft and the targetting camera blocking the target's image forcing the camera to break the lock by not being able to follow the targeted aircraft.

The best way for a targeted aircraft to escape an incoming Vikhr or Hellfire is still thru evasive manouvers since both missiles aren't very agile (and this case the Vikhr is even less agile than the Hellfire). There should also be a warning when a Vikhr or Hellfire is incoming against a helicopter since most military helicopters currently have laser warning receivers (they would certainly detect the laser used to guide those missiles).

5- Finally, I can only see 3 solutions to this problem:

5.1- The best IMO, would be to have a realistic targeting aproach for missiles such as the Vikhr or the Hellfire where the targeting camera must be pointed to the target (doesn't matter if it's an aircraft or a tank). I have the feeling that unfortunally this won't be implemented in ArmA2 but honestly I hope to be wrong!

5.2- If the targetting system in ArmA2 is the same as we have in ArmA (which unfortunally I believe that it will be the case) than it would be IMO better that the Vikhr (and also the Hellfire, of course) simply can't target aircraft (like currently happens with the Hellfire in ArmA).

5.3- Or again if the targetting system in ArmA2 is the same as we have in ArmA than make BOTH THE VIKHR AND HELLFIRE to be able to lock air targets but make sure that both missiles are much less effective/accurate than a Sidewinder or a AA-11 (or any other dedicated anti-air missiles like the Stinger).

Anyway, and again I repeat, if BIS wants to make the Vikhr anti-air capable than it must do the same for the Hellfire!! for a realism sake!!

[max power 21]

This was already discussed in another thread. Your point that the vikhr is no more an AA missile than the hellfire was adequately challenged. To respond further to your new evidence from 1991, it begs the question why you haven't heard anything more about this proposed air to air role since those tests. Further, the vikhr suffers from the same uber guidence problem that all other missiles in the game suffer from, including the hellfire. More realistic missile use I think would be a welcome change for most players.

Edited April 17, 2009 by Max Power