Igla-1V

[AlphaOneSix]

Did you guys notice that they have only half Gun Ammunition for some Payloads Reaper added in the first post.... ?! ... I just wonder why.

 

Weight.

[Isegrim]

Weight.

 

Yes sure . But is it to keep weight low or to not exceed maximum Takeoff weight...

[rcjonessnp175]

Yes sure . But is it to keep weight low or to not exceed maximum Takeoff weight...

 

Mission dependent and also dependent upon flight plan and fuel conservation requirements.

[AlphaOneSix]

Max takeoff weight.

 

The combinations with Vikhr/Rockets, Rockets/Rockets, and Ferry tanks will put the aircraft over max gross weight with full fuel and full 30mm ammo.

 

The top line (half 30mm, 4x Igla) must apparently be for air-to-air engagements only, so the less weight the better...it's obviously nowhere near max gross weight.

Edited April 23, 2015 by AlphaOneSix

[Isegrim]

So With Full Gun Ammo 12 x Atgm Vikhr and 2 x S 8 Rocketpods the KA- 50 is above maximum Takeoff......Sorry but I can't check this currently myself......... Is this done like that in DCS ? This is what was on my mind when I did see that picture.

[kobac]

AA missiles carried by attack helicopters are intended primarily for deterring and self-defense.

[Reaper6]

So With Full Gun Ammo 12 x Atgm Vikhr and 2 x S 8 Rocketpods the KA- 50 is above maximum Takeoff......Sorry but I can't check this currently myself......... Is this done like that in DCS ? This is what was on my mind when I did see that picture.

 

With 4 Igla-1v's more than likely.

 

Reaper6

[AlphaOneSix]

Example from page 14-22 of the DCS Ka-50 manual:

 

Here are the calculations for maximum fuel when carrying 12 Vikhr missiles, S-8 rocket pods, and a full cannon ammo load.

 

Weight of helicopter itself with a pair of Vikhr hardpoints and S-8 hardpoints – 8,200 kg

 

12 Vikhr missiles – 720 kg

 

2 S-8 rocket blocks (B-8 ) – 672 kg

 

460 cannon rounds – 460 kg

 

Maximum fuel quantity in this configuration: 10,800 – 8200 – 720 – 672 – 460 = 748 kg

 

748 kg corresponds to internal fuel tanks filled to 52% capacity.

 

So over max takeoff weight even without Iglas.

[Isegrim]

Bump....Funny the KA-50 Handles still surprisingly good above Max. TO weight.

[Flagrum]

Example from page 14-22 of the DCS Ka-50 manual:

 

 

 

So over max takeoff weight even without Iglas.

Hrm, interesting.

 

The mission editor gives no indication for that - not sure what it's "max. weight" is supposed to indicate as this loadout is well within _that_ limit (= 92% of max).

 

Would probably be nice if the ME would allow to select a certain "max weight" that the actual weight is compared to. Like a drop down box where you can select "normal t/o weight", "max t/o weight" ... or at least if that field in the ME would be editable ...

[Isegrim]

Thanks Flagrum .... IIRC it's the same for the rearming and refuel window ingame.

Edited April 24, 2015 by Isegrim

[Dudikoff]

Because ED decided it will be so.

 

Well, obviously, but it was stated in the context of this discussion which is in lines of "wouldn't it make sense to have..".

[Fri13]

Because you're wrong. In most cases, attack helicopters do not equip air to air weapons, even if they are able to do so. Helicopters don't have air to air as a job, that's up to fighters typically, and the AD troops who are defending the ground against these gunships.

In any case, helicopters with air to air capability are becoming more common now ... but the Ka-50 isn't going to be a heli that gets such capability.

 

 

 

Why is your flare spam not working or something?

In any case, if you were up against Ah-1's with AIM-9's, REALISTICALLY SPEAKING (since you're beating the realism drum :D ), you'd basically be up against Marine AH-1's running escort for an MH-53 that's trying to get troops in or out. Those AH-1's would also be supported by fighters and AWACS. Just saying, you know ... REALISTICALLY.

 

 

 

Instead, ED has given you unrealistic stealth capability - you're allowed to drop into the notch earlier than other aircraft.

REALISTICALLY, of course, some aircraft should be unable to detect you properly (you'd show up as a jamming strobe for a MiG-21, MiG-29, Su-27), while others would have your position down (say an F-15) even if you were sitting on the ground as long as your rotors are spinning.

REALISTICALLY, though, you should also be able to mask from radar behind buildings, forests, etc.

 

 

 

Yep, those stations were never cabled. Because it costs money. The F-15 also had an 'extra pylon' designed into its wings but it was never cabled, the pylon was never mounted there. A whole pylon. The US Apache ran trials with stingers but those stations were never cabled in production models either AFAIK.

 

Then again, hellfire already has an air to air kill in RL, and you can get different effects depending on which hellfire version you use.

The USA attack helicopters didnt carry the A-A missiles for political reasons, hence they don't get permission to engage air targets and that leads to situation they dont get the A-A missiles attached.

 

There are reports from USA military leaders writing criticism about political decisions for that, based pure BS estimations of the helicopter airframe lifetime dropping dramatically if A-A missiles are mounted.

 

The political reason is that the fleet of helicopters lifetime dropping dramatically would be too expensive and hence helicopters engaging to air combat with a another helicopter is disallowed and no A-A missiles were allowed to be mounted for missions. So resulting that helicopters really couldn't engage enemy helicopters or low flying air targets as they didn't have the weapons to do that.

 

The political decision was made based flawed calculations about how stressful maneuvers helicopter was required to go when doing ACM. The BS part is that immediately the helicopter was commanded to be fitted to A-A load, its airframe stress limits were halfed or something like that. The limits were lower than same helicopter doing normal A-G attacks, hence giving rating that lifetime is dramatically lowered and it will cost a lot more, so budget goes up and politicians panics.

 

That's what happens is when money talks for reasons to invest more money to projects for new CAS/CAP aircraft to protect the helicopters and ground troops.... Do you guess what aircraft it is?

 

The true cost of example AH-64 carrying two stingers is in the cost of same as any aircraft carrying them = training, maintenance, logistic etc that is done anyways and wouldn't add extra costs other than on paper (same false reasoning as why a empty bed in hospital is as expensive as bed with a patient on it, hence beds/rooms count needs ti be optimal for normal weekly medians).

 

Soviets/Russia carries A-A missiles and have support to those if needed. They train ACM so when needed their pilots are ready. Japan does same, almost everyone is doing it where politicians isn't giving artifical rules for business.

[AlphaOneSix]

Cite sources, please.

[GGTharos]

Fri13, did you make that up on the spot, or did you have someone else make that up on the spot for you?

 

You definitely didn't read it in any sort of official document anywhere.

[Fri13]

Fri13, did you make that up on the spot, or did you have someone else make that up on the spot for you?

 

You definitely didn't read it in any sort of official document anywhere.

I read and i have PDFs somewhere stored as well... Sorry.

 

Example: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/1992/BRM.htm

Edited May 4, 2015 by Fri13

[GGTharos]

Yep, I'm well aware of this document.

 

It applies to USMC only, and AFAIK they resumed their ACM stuff a while ago.

I don't know how you got 'political reasons' out of that document. Engineering reasons are just that: Engineering. In any case, I'm fairly certain that ACM training has continued at least as a special option. USMC helis still have an AAW component in certain missions.

Edited May 4, 2015 by GGTharos

[ShuRugal]

Yep, I'm well aware of this document.

 

It applies to USMC only...

 

 

How?

 

The document cites numerous examples of helicopter-on-helicopter and fixed-wing-on-helicopter engagements which had nothing to do with the USMC, and even notes that the British services added an ACM segment for helicopter flight training as a result of their own experiences in real-word engagements.

[AlphaOneSix]

The restriction only applied to USMC AH-1W's.

[ShuRugal]

Perhaps I am simply misunderstanding the nature of the disagreement here:

 

As I understand it, the argument is that there is no relevance for AAW missions in a helicopter.

The document in question makes a very strong case that AAW missions ARE relevant for combat-capable helicopters, and presents this argument as the key reason in resuming ACM training on USMC Cobras.

 

Since the discussion here is about the relevance of AAW mission and weapons in combat helicopters, the paper indirectly supports helicopters being prepared for AAW roles, as it makes a strong case demonstrating the relevance of helicopters in that role.

[AlphaOneSix]

The document in post #66 was used to defend the argument made in post #63.

 

Fri13's argument was that the decision to not arm U.S. helicopter with air-to-air missiles was a political one. GGTharos and I disagree. Fri13 posted the document in question in defense of his argument, and GGTharos doesn't think it defends his argument at all.

 

I think that sums up the last several posts...

[GGTharos]

Yep, AlphaOneSix summed it up.

 

@ShuRugal, the USMC has a very specific need for ACM training compared to other services IMHO - the insertion/extraction flights they perform are escorted by AIM-9 armed cobras, and they are there to provide that security.

 

The USAF trains their crews in ACM as well (At least I'm fairly confident that they do), but ACM training and carriage of AAMs are two different things.

[ShuRugal]

Not to be disagreeable, but according to the document, USMC HMLA squadrons also have dedicated mission profiles for hunting enemy helicopters, and for providing point-defense against fixed-wing aircraft.

 

And just because the UMSC is specifically the branch the document is related to by no means excludes the possibility of the points therein being applicable to other services. As the document points out, in any conflict where both sides possess combat-capable helicopters (which are actually conducting missions, not sitting idle like in desert storm), there will most likely be helicopter-on-helicopter engagements. Under such conditions, it only makes sense to equip helicopters with a limited AAM armament.