R-73 on the Ka-50

Hello,

Regarding the modeling of air to air missiles on the Kamov. Would it not be parsimonious to assume that, given that most of the weapon systems on the Kamov are the same as those on the Su-25T, the IR missile launch process would be the same?

We know that the Kamov carries the R-73 and even have a switch on the stick. Why not model it using the programming for the Su-25?

-Avimimus

P.S. I ran a search and couldn't find the thread covering this topic and couldn't find it. Sorry if this is a duplication.

Do yuo have any (real life) pictures showing R-73 on Black Shark?

The weapons systems on the Ka50 and Su25T are based around the same optical sight and laser-guided missile, but are still different in many ways.

The code for the Ka50's weapons system - not that you can immediately tell from the videos - is completely new and isn't related to the Su25T code.

So it's a moot point, to be honest.

In addition to that, the evidence that I've seen so far suggests that the R-73 just isn't a realistic weapon for the Ka50.

To be honest, not having an R-73 isn't important. For a helicopter, it's quite a big and heavy missile - certainly if you're just carrying it on the off-chance of finding something to shoot down. It just hogs a pylon you can use for more ordnance.

The Vikhr can be used in the air-to-air role, as people have found many times in Flaming Cliffs - it suffices perfectly well.

You don't want to wade into A2A combat in an attack chopper unless you absolutely have to, though - your best bet is just to run away . . . .

i think in multiplayer ka50 fliers will find in need for an a2a missle with the jets about

i think in multiplayer ka50 fliers will find in need for an a2a missle with the jets about

If you think you stand a chance against a fast-mover in a helicopter . . . . think again ;)

Helicopters fly NOE. Visibility from a Ka50 cabin is poor. You look down for targets, not up. You have no radar, you don't even have an RWR.

You'd just have absolutely no idea the fast-mover was there. None.

Helicopter are just targets for jets well this one will be a good moving targets ;)

It will be a cat and mouse game for sure..

R-73 is regularly refered to in promotion materials (as well as seen in the Ka-50-2 erdogan mock up). It is far more feasible than the R-60 or Igla would be (both of which would have extremely low ranges). There is also the switch on the joystick -although this probably applies to the Shkval...

The thrust vectoring on the R-73 would make it stable at low speeds and it would be able to engage maneuvering and faster moving targets than the 9A1472 would be able to. Ka-50s would likely have been deployed in fairly large formations and giving the commanders helicopter a secondary escort/air to air role would be quite feasible.

The fact that the basic ranging and targeting systems are comparable between planes, and the fact that the Ka-50 doesn't carry additional targeting systems, suggests that the same simplified missile launch system on the Su-25 would be carried over.

Ka-50-2 Erdogan mockup:

Picture showing what appears to be an pair of iglas (or an MDB) on the right hand side:

Finally, a Ka-52 with inert R-73:

So no pictures of the Ka-50, but every other variant ;)

Additional evidence for a doctrine that values a self-defense air-to-air capability of course comes from the fuse and fragmentation belt on the 9A1472 and the dedicated 9A220O Ataka derivative.

I agree that a heliborn version of the igla doesn't make sense. But that never stopped reality from existing...

A four barrel launcher on the AMTSH:

And a six barrelled launcher (probably from a ground vehicle):

So the argument against the R-73 isn't as strong as it appears.

The fact that the R-27R is of modular design and includes a datalink would suggest that the R-27T would also have this capability, but it doesn't. The fact that Moskit missiles hang off operational Su-33 airframes on airshows also doesn't make it usable in service. :)

Here is what I replied to the same question in an recent thread. I think what I said is true here as much as it was there:

Not being 'in service' is only one problem. The other is not knowing how it would be implemented in the WCS. I.e., what would the HUD look like? What manuevering restrictions would be in place? Would it give an audio tone?

 

ED is trying to keep the guessing to a minimum in this simulation. They make best guesses where they have to, but where they don't, because it isn't in service anyway, it's best for the quality of the product to simply omit it.

 

Having said that, I don't believe there has been any final decision. Perhaps they'll obtain enough info to model it correctly and then I'm sure you'll see it hanging off your stub-wings.

Again though, this may change.

The only reason I can see to put an A2A missile on the KA50 is for attack against another chopper. But then you have an auto-tracking cannon, and vihkir.

Against a jet there are 2 things, 1) even with a 73 or igla, you stand very little chance. You will probably not spot them in time to do anything or have a chance of getting a good angle to fire from. 2) If you are flying NOE, there is a very small chance that you will even be spotted.

Pseudo-modeling capabilities that aren't there to begin with doesn't quite fit into the authentic model of the helicopter which ED is attempting.

Well, I don't see them making a Ka-50 without supporting the AA missiles in its WCS (but I would expect it to carry Iglas instead of R-73s). The AA missiles are there to defend against other helicopters, not fighters, so Iglas lower range is not an issue. Using Vikhrs against helicopters is not that simple or viable in every situation. You still need to make a lock on the target which is moving and it's a question how much moving can the tracking system take to stay on track because it's not built for tracking fast moving targets.

There isn't anything complicated about AA missiles support - it just uses the missiles seeker and when you get the tone, you can fire. You probably get some indicator on the HUD where the missiles seeker is pointing currently and that's it (similar to what the Su-25 has). There is no need for any helmet tracking system on the Ka50 (like Schlem) so that's out of the deal, too.

R-73 is regularly refered to in promotion materials (as well as seen in the Ka-50-2 erdogan mock up). It is far more feasible than the R-60 or Igla would be (both of which would have extremely low ranges). There is also the switch on the joystick -although this probably applies to the Shkval...

 

The thrust vectoring on the R-73 would make it stable at low speeds and it would be able to engage maneuvering and faster moving targets than the 9A1472 would be able to. Ka-50s would likely have been deployed in fairly large formations and giving the commanders helicopter a secondary escort/air to air role would be quite feasible.

 

The fact that the basic ranging and targeting systems are comparable between planes, and the fact that the Ka-50 doesn't carry additional targeting systems, suggests that the same simplified missile launch system on the Su-25 would be carried over.

What is referred to in Russian promotional materials isn't always the same as what is currently integrated on the aircraft.

There are no photos of the R-73 on a Ka50. There may be photos of a mockup on a Ka52, but the avionics suite on that aircraft is rather more complicated and isn't in service yet.

The comparison to the Kh-41 is a good one ;)

The basic ranging and targeting systems for ATGMs may well be similar on the Su25T and Ka50 - but it's madness to suggest that everything else is the same.

The Su25T has ten hardpoints, the Ka50 has four. The Su25T can carry the Mercury pod, the Ka50 can't. The Su25T can carry the Phantasmagoria pod to guide ARMs, the Ka50 can't.

The sighting system may be similar, but the WCS is completely different!

Nothing was copied over . . . really. They are two completely separate aircraft, in real life as well as in the sim.

Well, I don't see them making a Ka-50 without supporting the AA missiles in its WCS (but I would expect it to carry Iglas instead of R-73s). The AA missiles are there to defend against other helicopters, not fighters, so Iglas lower range is not an issue. Using Vikhrs against helicopters is not that simple or viable in every situation. You still need to make a lock on the target which is moving and it's a question how much moving can the tracking system take to stay on track because it's not built for tracking fast moving targets.

 

There isn't anything complicated about AA missiles support - it just uses the missiles seeker and when you get the tone, you can fire. You probably get some indicator on the HUD where the missiles seeker is pointing currently and that's it (similar to what the Su-25 has). There is no need for any helmet tracking system on the Ka50 (like Schlem) so that's out of the deal, too.

Oh no, the Shkval is fairly good at locking up moving targets . . . .

Anyway, if your target is moving fast, it's not something you should be fighting.

In order to carry and balance an A2A missile, you lose half your ordnance load . . . . and that's simply unacceptable.

Rough range for an Igla is 5km. It's an old missile.

Rough range for a Vikhr is 8-10km. And you're already carrying twelve of them.

. . . . which bit of this doesn't add up to Igla - or any air-to-air missile - being a poor choice?

BTW, the Ka50 does have some helmet-aiming functionality for mudmoving . . .

edit - something that's just occurred to me about the potential mechanics of firing an R-73 from a Ka50 . . .

Imagine the effects on the Vikhr launcher package of the rocket exhaust of a fire-breathing Mach 2 heater . . .

edit - something that's just occurred to me about the potential mechanics of firing an R-73 from a Ka50 . . .

Imagine the effects on the Vikhr launcher package of the rocket exhaust of a fire-breathing Mach 2 heater . . .

Gotta be worse than the cannon.

you don't even have an RWR.

But you have laser warning... would come in handy to that medevac Mi-8 pilot shot down by F-15E with a LGB over Bosnia

Starting on realism eh? Well, then give us the ability to change the number of Vikhrs (and the corresponding decrease in weight) per pylon, as is done in real life. In 2004, for 'Rubezh 2004' exercise, the mighty Ka-50 bort 25 carried 2x2 Vikhrs on the standard pylons. On another occasion, a Ka-52 carried 4x4 Vikhrs. So, as you're using 'operational realism', we should have that too in Black Shark...

the Ka-50 can carry R-73's I get access to a book called DRJ (Defence recognition journal) and the latest one is on russian aircraft and helos. the Ka-50 is shown to carry R-73s i'll scan the book tonight and post a pic

Would it not be parsimonious...

Parsi..what??? :D

On the subject: If it's not in the game, then there has to be a strong reason ED didn't put it there..my "guess" is, they've more info on Ka-50 and then anyone of us.

I agree with the point regarding the Kh-41 and it is nice to hear about the avionics.

I recognise that published documents should not be over relied upon (The R-73 is supposed to be air to ground capable against hot targets for instance).

I very much doubt the Vikhr pods would be effected by efflux (they are fully enclosed complete with a metal cap and are much more durable than a AGM-114 would be).

I also believe that loosing half your ordinance is generally a good idea. I tend to go up with only half or even a quarter of a full payload in the A-10 and Su-25. If I have a larger payload it makes me uncomfortable and I dump it on the first target I find.

The range stated for the 9A1472 is inaccurate. Ten kilometres can only be achieved against a target which is well below a launch platform that is also traveling at speed. Even if you leave out the need for higher terminal velocity and the aerodynamic drag generated by turning to match the target, I would be surprised if it was effective at more than 6km.

The Igla is an unlikely choice due to small seeker size and warhead (on the other hand it is designed for a 0-0 launch which would speak in its favour). The thrust vectoring on the R-73 would allow accurate flight as soon as it leaves the rail, it also has a more powerful warhead than either of the other missiles. Its range would likely be similar to the rear firing variant, and at low altitude would be able to reach a detonation point at around 6km away (depending on target aspect).

The most important thing is that both Kamov and Mil recognise the need for heliborne AAMs. If the actual airforce has such a requirement than it would make sense to model this capability. I am curious myself to see how effective an R-73 launch at low speed would be against a fast mover.

Parsi..what??? :D

 

On the subject: If it's not in the game, then there has to be a strong reason ED didn't put it there..my "guess" is, they've more info on Ka-50 and then anyone of us.

Well that would be parsimonious...yes

Best definition (http://dml.cmnh.org/1996Nov/msg00110.html):

"'The law of Parcimony[sic], which forbids without

necessity, the multiplication of entities, powers,

principles, or causes; above all, the postulation

of an unknown force, where a known impotence can

account for the effect.'[sir W. Hamilton]

(The rule was originally stated by Occam as,

'Enitia Non Sunt Multiplicanda Preater Necessitatem')

In effect, this rule states that if there exists

two answers to a problem or a question, and if, for

one answer to be true, well-established laws of logic

and science must be re-written, ignored, or suspended

in order to allow it to be true, and for the other

answer to be true no such accommodation need be made,

then the simpler-the second-of the two answers is much

more likely to be correct.""

Starting on realism eh? Well, then give us the ability to change the number of Vikhrs (and the corresponding decrease in weight) per pylon, as is done in real life. In 2004, for 'Rubezh 2004' exercise, the mighty Ka-50 bort 25 carried 2x2 Vikhrs on the standard pylons. On another occasion, a Ka-52 carried 4x4 Vikhrs. So, as you're using 'operational realism', we should have that too in Black Shark...

I assume the tubes are removed from the standard launchers?

On the normal Kamovs only the outboard launchers carry Vikhrs. You may be confusing the Ka-52 with one that was testing a new hybrid missile system.

the Ka-50 can carry R-73's I get access to a book called DRJ (Defence recognition journal) and the latest one is on russian aircraft and helos. the Ka-50 is shown to carry R-73s i'll scan the book tonight and post a pic

Sounds interesting.

Do yuo have any (real life) pictures showing R-73 on Black Shark?

Hajduk, are you sure you havent the fever or something?! :D

Originally Posted by Force_Feedback

Starting on realism eh? Well, then give us the ability to change the number of Vikhrs (and the corresponding decrease in weight) per pylon, as is done in real life. In 2004, for 'Rubezh 2004' exercise, the mighty Ka-50 bort 25 carried 2x2 Vikhrs on the standard pylons. On another occasion, a Ka-52 carried 4x4 Vikhrs. So, as you're using 'operational realism', we should have that too in Black Shark...

Guys, I'm afraid you're going to accuse us of stonewalling your request, but that isn't our intention at all. I'm all for it, as I'm sure BGP and the rest of us are, if ED finds enough info to model this properly. If they decide to model it as best they can, you won't see me complaining, but if they don't, we're giving you the reasons why, as far as we know. The same question has come up on the Russian forum and this is how it was answered.

You have to understand that phrases like "I imagine..." "it's logical that..." "probably..." etc., don't belong here. We're talking about by the book as much as reasonably possible.

I assume the tubes are removed from the standard launchers?

 

On the normal Kamovs only the outboard launchers carry Vikhrs. You may be confusing the Ka-52 with one that was testing a new hybrid missile system.

No I'm not, Ka-50 bumber 25 during the Rubezh 2004 carried 2 Vikhrs on each standard Vikhr launcher, together with 2 80mm rocket pods on the inner pylons.

I also believe that loosing half your ordinance is generally a good idea. I tend to go up with only half or even a quarter of a full payload in the A-10 and Su-25. If I have a larger payload it makes me uncomfortable and I dump it on the first target I find.

 

The range stated for the 9A1472 is inaccurate. Ten kilometres can only be achieved against a target which is well below a launch platform that is also traveling at speed. Even if you leave out the need for higher terminal velocity and the aerodynamic drag generated by turning to match the target, I would be surprised if it was effective at more than 6km.

 

The Igla is an unlikely choice due to small seeker size and warhead (on the other hand it is designed for a 0-0 launch which would speak in its favour). The thrust vectoring on the R-73 would allow accurate flight as soon as it leaves the rail, it also has a more powerful warhead than either of the other missiles. Its range would likely be similar to the rear firing variant, and at low altitude would be able to reach a detonation point at around 6km away (depending on target aspect).

I fail to see how, when you've just said that both missiles are likely to have a range of 6km, an R-73 would be a better choice :)

Exhaust coolers, flares, discoballs . . . all reduce heater PK.

Laser guidance is rather more difficult to spoof.

While operating an A10 or Su25T with every pylon loaded might be tricky, I'd be fairly comfortable in a Ka50 with twelve Vikhrs and two B-8 pods, even more so if running short range trips with light fuel loads.

I certainly wouldn't want to give up the B-8s for a pair of R-73s.

The most important thing is that both Kamov and Mil recognise the need for heliborne AAMs. If the actual airforce has such a requirement than it would make sense to model this capability. I am curious myself to see how effective an R-73 launch at low speed would be against a fast mover.

Well this is the problem - DO Kamov and Mil recognise the need for it?

So far the only photos that I've seen of an R-73 on a helicopter are inert models . . .

The US don't recognise a need for it, and neither do the UK. Exploring possibilities in testing is one thing . . . . but responding for a genuine need requested by the services?

I still believe that even equipped with R-73, the Ka50 wouldn't stand a chance against a fast-mover.

The APU-6 launcher with only two missiles hanging from it has indeed been seen flying, and I'd support that being included in the game as an option for flying with a light payload.

But sadly I still don't see evidence to support the R-73 being carried, let alone a reason to carry it.