Igla-1V

[dimitriov]

No I wasn't saying that vikhr is bad ^^

 

I was telling you that during my experimentation, I had tested the R-60 and R-73 missiles, which, being converted in laser guiding mod, were just "big shitty vikhr", you can just load 2 of them, they are heavy, and ensure the same result than a vikhr because they must be laser guided to be used with the Kamov.

 

No, Vikhr is probably the best missile we could hope on the russian helicopter, even if an hellfire is fire and forget, has a range not so much shorter, and hits the roof of the target... But it's not the debate.

 

Again, the only solution would be to implement an IR guiding system on the Kamov, without it, talking about which missile should be used (Igla, R-60, R-73, none...) is a loss of time and energy. And as I see 3rd party coding their own IR systems on their aircraft (if i well remember, the video with Mistral on the Pat's Gazelle was one of the first ones), I'm wondering if it's so hard to do the same on the Kamov...

 

Nicolas

Edited April 11, 2015 by dimitriov

[Reaper6]

Sorry My mistake misunderstood.

 

Reaper6

[whitehot]

No I wasn't saying that vikhr is bad ^^

 

 

Again, the only solution would be to implement an IR guiding system on the Kamov, without it, talking about which missile should be used (Igla, R-60, R-73, none...) is a loss of time and energy. And as I see 3rd party coding their own IR systems on their aircraft (if i well remember, the video with Mistral on the Pat's Gazelle was one of the first ones), I'm wondering if it's so hard to do the same on the Kamov...

 

Nicolas

 

excuse me, but I don't understand what you mean when you talk about an ir system.

The lock one on that kind of weapons would be totally "missile-side" - the launching platform would just need a fixed crosshair representing the boresight of the missile (different missiles would have a larger/smaller boresight, in milliradians).

 

That's exactly what happens on the SU-25 employing its IR missiles in FIO mode.

Not having a FCR or other sensors like IRST, the KA-50 would employ IR missiles in this way imho.

[flanker0ne]

Not always the Real world and a program keep the same logic.

[Suchacz]

Guys, excuse me, but the ingame machine is a simulated RL version of a Ka-50, probably a version which is not curently in the service anymore. Because of that, it can be modeled precisely as it gets, as the RU goverment/military permited ED to made it...

 

Imho there is no room for the upgrades that the comunity (me too) wishes to be done to the current model and which arent based on the valid info/intel. I vote for the reality

[dimitriov]

@Reaper, had a deco on the TAW server, sent you an MP :p

 

Yes sure,

 

I was talking about the necessity to implement the IR function in the code of the Kamov to make it able to shoot the IR weapons. It's not a matter of system, but just of coding to make them compatible ingame, cause the Igla probably don't need a specific aiming system to work.

 

In DCS, you have (if I do well remember), 4 types of missiles, numbered in the code from warhead type 1 to warhead type 4. There is laser, radar, IR, and i guess anti-radar guidance system. The Kamov is just incompatible with the IR category, making it compatible would allow us to shoot iglas, R-73, R-60 without having to change their warhead category from "IR" to "Laser". That's all, they all are fire and forget, and just need a target in front of them to hit it. And the A/A switch on the collective is currently present AND owns an argument and a binding (lctrl+U) in DCS, so you just have to select this mode and shoot once its argument would be associated to the IR mode.

 

So is it realistic ?

 

@Suchacz : Yes, it was a prototype. It was used some few times in Chechnya to shoot at some insurgents... But in DCS we use it as one of the main russian combat helicopter, in fictive war opposing NATO to USSR. Would it be realist to consider that Russia just owns 3-4 Kamov-50 ? Or 150 ? We use the kamov for anti-tank mission, in complex war scenarii, the protoype wasn't finished, and after having spent 2000 hours on it, i cannot say anything else than : it wasn't ready for such mission. In those kind of situation, the theater is saturated by enemy helicopters and planes.

 

Just have a look to the abris and its communication with the PVI... It more looks like an "experimentation" than a definitive design... Engaging Kamov at war in important quantity, would obviously suppose to make him able to defend himself against aerial threats.

 

All what I mean is (yes I know I speak a very approximative english) : Yes it's realist to have the Kamov in this version, but no, it's totally unrealistic to use it at war in this same version. When you meet an A-10 : ok you're a good pilot, you manage to hit him with your canon once or twice before getting killed (except if the A-10 pilot is a dummy and begins to circle at low speed around you and at your altitude...).

 

All the others modern helicopters have Iglas, Aim-9, Mistral with them, I dont understand why the Kamov should be the only one without... In these conditions, not having iglas IS unrealistic, because it supposes that your HQ decided to throw your squadron in the battle without being able to defend yourself efficiently from any air threat. And I tell you this 20 minutes after having killed 5 Kamovs, one after one, on the TAW server ^^. If I had been again just one Ah-1 with sidewinders, I would have been shot down, but the other players had to visually find me, (not changed by using iglas), but then to precisly lock me, wait for the telemetry if they don't want to burn it, and finally to launch me 1 or 2 Vikhrs in the face, while I am still moving at 250km/h, 5 km away, and at 90° from them... Did they manage to do it ?

 

No, and their Colonel will have to explain to his superior that he lost 5 kamovs in 10 minutes because they hadn't the gear to quickly react again an enemy (and very very dangerous :p) helicopter. And no need of talking about the danger to get in this area, having to cross 100 km without town or forest to hide, with 20 players in Su-27/F-15 fighting above my head...

 

Not having Iglas suppose that you waited to own a total air superiority against NATO, which is totally unrealistic (and probably impossible) considering the Russian helicopters tactics and the amount of planes disponible in each faction.

 

The story of the missing cables : I don't believe it : The collective has an A/A mode switch, it just was left aside for another unknown reason. The modeling of the Kamov is surely very accurate, but I don't think they modeled each cable of each system.

 

Nicolas

Edited April 12, 2015 by dimitriov

[GGTharos]

All the others modern helicopters have Iglas, Aim-9, Mistral with them, I dont understand why the Kamov should be the only one without...

 

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.

 

If I had been again just one Ah-1 with sidewinders, I would have been shot down,

 

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.

 

And not talking about the danger to get in this area, having to cross 100 km without town or forest to hide, with 20 players in Su-27/F-15 fighting above my head...

 

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.

 

The story of the missing cables : I don't believe it : The collective has an A/A mode switch, it just was left aside for another unknown reason.

 

Nicolas

 

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.

[Fri13]

Yes, yes, yes. You're exactly wrong.

 

ABRIS has a limited amount of memory within which it can hold the map in RL. Using the ME/F10 map in ABRIS is actually wrong, but we can 'excuse it' and say that your maintainers pre-loaded a hi-res map of the particular AO you'll be working in.

 

I don't think anything will be done with it though ... but don't expect to see it in the A-10.

Even so, bitmaps were not used often on those purposes and vectors doesn't really take than few kilobytes to cover huge areas. The bitmaps what A-10C use are consuming memory a lot.

 

The difference is just that we have whole maps loaded in mission instead just the areas mission actually would happen.

[Fri13]

Well, I guess for starters the Igla-1V is not modeled in the game! As for mounting a Igla on the Ka50, it is in the Weapons database(It's just not named "Igla").

 

I'm actually not sure what you mean by the statement "big shitty Vikhr", considering it's faster and has a longer range than the hellfire! And I am no expert on the hellfire missile, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't have the ability for a proximity fuse. And not to mention there is no counter measure for the Vikhr, unless you see it coming and you can maneuver quick enough to get out of its way.

 

Reaper6

Does Vikhr even have a proximity yet modeled? As far I know the Vikhr doesn't have the fragmentation simulation why it isn't so effective against planes etc?

 

I would take a IGLA-V any day as addition to protect against Apaches flied by AI. As now locking to clear air target can be sometimes impossible. And closer enemy AI gets, faster it is to fire at you.

[Fri13]

No, Vikhr is probably the best missile we could hope on the russian helicopter, even if an hellfire is fire and forget, has a range not so much shorter, and hits the roof of the target... But it's not the debate.

 

Only AGM-114L Longbow Hellfire is a fire and forget with its millimeter radar seeker aka Hellfire Longbow. Others are SALH that requires someone to paint the target.

 

Vikhr is great too as you have range and speed, but launcher always visible whole flight time. But multipurpose Vikhr + 2 Igla-V would be perfect combo, unless SHKVAL could be improved to lock clear targets (helicopter against sky)

[Reaper6]

Does Vikhr even have a proximity yet modeled? As far I know the Vikhr doesn't have the fragmentation simulation why it isn't so effective against planes etc?

 

I would take a IGLA-V any day as addition to protect against Apaches flied by AI. As now locking to clear air target can be sometimes impossible. And closer enemy AI gets, faster it is to fire at you.

 

The Vikhr does have a proximity as well as Head-On proximity, and it definitely works in game.

 

It isn't really a secret, but I tend to keep it to myself. But You can use the HMS to auto lock Air targets, and it works quite well for Rotary and Fixed Wing(You can find this information in the Manual, and with some practice).

 

Reaper6

[kobac]

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.

 

 

 

As you can see GGTharos you're not right. Serbian variant attack helicopter Gazelle regularly carries the A-A weapons Strela 2M "Arrow" (9M32M).

[GGTharos]

I can show you a whole bunch of images for USA Apache carrying Stingers, too. They're not equipped operationally, and the Apaches aren't wired for them IIRC - the images were from a test.

 

Like I said, AAMs on helis is a relatively new thing in terms of operational standards. Back in the day (of the KA-50), few helis equipped them and they had special purpose.

General heli jobs is not A2A, it is avoiding opposition that they are not assigned to fight, and support the troops they are supposed to support.

 

As you can see GGTharos you're not right. Serbian variant attack helicopter Gazelle regularly carries the A-A weapons Strela 2M "Arrow" (9M32M).

[Catastrophy]

I swear, I got shot down by a Hind's Shturm rocket in my A10C. Maybe the Vikhr isn't so bad against air?

It's just the targetting is crap without TrackIR and the little time in between throwing up my hands in despair when I try to aim at airborne targets.

[GGTharos]

They're more effective than they should be, and there are no in-game countermeasures against them.

 

Realistically flares would work just fine.

[Sleksa]

I can show you a whole bunch of images for USA Apache carrying Stingers, too. They're not equipped operationally, and the Apaches aren't wired for them IIRC - the images were from a test.

 

Like I said, AAMs on helis is a relatively new thing in terms of operational standards. Back in the day (of the KA-50), few helis equipped them and they had special purpose.

General heli jobs is not A2A, it is avoiding opposition that they are not assigned to fight, and support the troops they are supposed to support.

 

This sounds wrong to me. air-air taskings for helicopters were rather commonplace from what I've read, especially in the border between the Germanies. The East-German hinds for example used to intercept nato helicopters (like the cobra in the picture below), as well as civilian airplanes pretty much constantly throughout the cold war, and were seen armed with both molniyas as well as strelas numerous times.

 

 

 

 

Poland also used strelas extensively on their helicopters, especially on the mi-2 and sokol- series of helicopters.

http://combatace.com/topic/71958-mi-2-made-in-swidnik/

[GGTharos]

I'm aware of the Hind intercepts. Which part of 'some' reads as 'extensively' to you?

 

You know, 'some' Marine AH-1's hauled sidewinders, too.

 

Again, AAMs as standard armament on attack helis is a relatively new concept, and the expectation in actual combat (you know, NOT intercepting defectors or staring at others across the border) is that the helicopter will avoid contact with anything that isn't its CAS assignment.

[Sleksa]

I'm aware of the Hind intercepts. Which part of 'some' reads as 'extensively' to you?

 

You know, 'some' Marine AH-1's hauled sidewinders, too.

 

Again, AAMs as standard armament on attack helis is a relatively new concept, and the expectation in actual combat (you know, NOT intercepting defectors or staring at others across the border) is that the helicopter will avoid contact with anything that isn't its CAS assignment.

 

The arguments that you make are somewhat true, however I'd argue that there's very little relevance of what was or wasn't standard armament on a experimental aircraft that only saw limited combat, especially from ingame perspective where we can have russian a-10's next to turkey, strafing american helicopters that are taking off from Russia in DCS.

 

Instead I'd say that a more sensible option would be to look at how the ka-50's development, as well as overall helicopter use was faring during the end of the cold war and how the ka-50 would've likely been used had it replaced the hinds in the quantities that it was expected to without the soviet fall putting a near 20 year long halt on freeze on Russian arms development.

 

From my perspective, the use of helicopters as interceptors had already been done extensively (and yes I'm using that word to describe something that was done along the nato-warsaw border repeatedly), especially at the end of cold war. The air-air missiles did start appearing on helicopters during the late 80's and I see no reason why the use of them would've dwindled, considering the large amount of interceptions done during those days. Likewise, in an all out ww3 scenario the amount and existance of cleared airspace was likely to be very minimal and the chances of meeting hostile aircraft was likely to be much higher than the wars Russia and the west have found themselves in after the iron curtain and the nuclear duckwaving went away.

 

Modern helicopters as well, like you said, do feature air-air missiles nowadays. However I'd say the development of this kind of weaponry on helicopters was likely globally affected at the time of the ka50's design and construction, and with the fall of the soviets creating the subsequent de-escalation lowering the chances of a helicopter meeting another combat aircraft compared to a cold war gone hot-scenario. This also had a huge effect on weapons development and procurement on a massive scale (some notable examples being the g11, eurofighter, yak-141's as well as the kamov).

 

The fragmentation sleeve of the vikhrs themselves also denote that the soviets/Russia were thinking that helicopters ending up in a situation where they need to combat other aircraft was atleast such a likely scenario that it directly affected the missile's design.

Edited April 22, 2015 by Sleksa

[GGTharos]

The arguments that you make are somewhat true, however I'd argue that there's very little relevance of what was or wasn't standard armament on a experimental aircraft that only saw limited combat, especially from ingame perspective where we can have russian a-10's next to turkey, strafing american helicopters that are taking off from Russia in DCS.

 

Yep, and irrelevant. The devs removed weapons from the A-10C which the A-10C doesn't carry for example (though it could, sort of!)

 

Instead I'd say that a more sensible option would be to look at how the ka-50's development, as well as overall helicopter use was faring during the end of the cold war and how the ka-50 would've likely been used had it replaced the hinds in the quantities that it was expected to without the soviet fall putting a near 20 year long halt on freeze on Russian arms development.

A more sensible option would be to look at Ka-50 employment. It was rejected because it's technology was not keeping pace AND because it was a single-seater, that's why it never made it to mass production. Then, yes, Soviet Union fell apart but frankly a single-seater is a curiosity.

 

You can go with better examples of helis using AAMs, really. The Ka-50 is a pretty bad one.

 

The air-air missiles did start appearing on helicopters during the late 80's and I see no reason why the use of them would've dwindled, considering the large amount of interceptions done during those days.

Obviously they didn't dwindle, they increased for certain users of helicopters. But not until rather recently has there been a real 'boom' of this, and even so not everyone cares for the capability.

 

Likewise, in an all out ww3 scenario the amount and existance of cleared airspace was likely to be very minimal and the chances of meeting hostile aircraft was likely to be much higher than the wars Russia and the west have found themselves in after the iron curtain and the nuclear duckwaving went away.

And just what were you going to do vs. a helicopter scooting around between trees, trying to shoot up your tanks? Get closer? Because that's what you'd need to do to use a heater, at which point you get into guns range ... as an attack heli, your useful payload is not AAMs, it's AGMs.

 

Studies have been made for heli ACM, and the picture isn't pretty. Missiles are very important, if you have open terrain to shoot'em in, but the primary mandate is to avoid that engagement and go support your troops.

 

Modern helicopters as well, like you said, do feature air-air missiles nowadays. However I'd say the development of this kind of weaponry on helicopters was likely globally affected at the time of the ka50's design and construction, and with the fall of the soviets creating the subsequent de-escalation lowering the chances of a helicopter meeting another combat aircraft compared to a cold war gone hot-scenario. This also had a huge effect on weapons development and procurement on a massive scale (some notable examples being the g11, eurofighter, yak-141's as well as the kamov).

During the Ka-50's time is a coincidence: Lightweight MANPADS had become very available very recently, and only some helis were equipped with bigger, dedicated AAMs, for very specific missions (one of which you mentioned above).

 

The fragmentation sleeve of the vikhrs themselves also denote that the soviets/Russia were thinking that helicopters ending up in a situation where they need to combat other aircraft was atleast such a likely scenario that it directly affected the missile's design.

I disagree with that analysis. The fragmentation sleeve for Vikhrs is for attacking soft targets. The AA use of it is a happy coincidence, and I'll bet you that it is not optimized for A2A, but for soft targets. The air to air fuze is more along the lines of thinking in some air to air terms, but again, not optimal. Far better than a TOW though, definitely a huge, huge advantage by comparison.

 

Don't misunderstand: The Vikhr's A2A capability is every bit as 'collateral damage' as the Hellfire's A2A capability. It's one of those 'you'd be surprised at what it can do' things, not it was 'designed for' ... it is a tertiary function, primary and secondary is armor/bunkers and soft targets.

[Dudikoff]

All this argumentation doesn't seem to be leading anywhere. Personally, I don't see why it's necessary to link their availability in the game to what actually got mounted on this limited production helicopter. It's not like we have the Ka-52 option in the game and it's not like Ka-50's would require some extensive WCS modification to carry them..

 

IMHO, it would be nice to have the option to mount Igla's since this is a game after all and various hypothetical scenarios where these missiles would make sense can be made. The choice to include them would always be up to the scenario designer. Furthermore, if we get e.g. Super Cobras later on and they get the Sidewinders, it would be nice to have Igla's on the Ka-50 as a counter. It's not like lasers are asked for..

[GGTharos]

Personally, I don't see why it's necessary to link their availability in the game to what actually got mounted on this limited production helicopter.

 

Because ED decided it will be so.

[Sleksa]

Yep, and irrelevant. The devs removed weapons from the A-10C which the A-10C doesn't carry for example (though it could, sort of!)

 

A more sensible option would be to look at Ka-50 employment. It was rejected because it's technology was not keeping pace AND because it was a single-seater, that's why it never made it to mass production. Then, yes, Soviet Union fell apart but frankly a single-seater is a curiosity.

 

You can go with better examples of helis using AAMs, really. The Ka-50 is a pretty bad one.

 

Obviously they didn't dwindle, they increased for certain users of helicopters. But not until rather recently has there been a real 'boom' of this, and even so not everyone cares for the capability.

 

And just what were you going to do vs. a helicopter scooting around between trees, trying to shoot up your tanks? Get closer? Because that's what you'd need to do to use a heater, at which point you get into guns range ... as an attack heli, your useful payload is not AAMs, it's AGMs.

 

Studies have been made for heli ACM, and the picture isn't pretty. Missiles are very important, if you have open terrain to shoot'em in, but the primary mandate is to avoid that engagement and go support your troops.

 

During the Ka-50's time is a coincidence: Lightweight MANPADS had become very available very recently, and only some helis were equipped with bigger, dedicated AAMs, for very specific missions (one of which you mentioned above).

 

I disagree with that analysis. The fragmentation sleeve for Vikhrs is for attacking soft targets. The AA use of it is a happy coincidence, and I'll bet you that it is not optimized for A2A, but for soft targets. The air to air fuze is more along the lines of thinking in some air to air terms, but again, not optimal. Far better than a TOW though, definitely a huge, huge advantage by comparison.

 

Don't misunderstand: The Vikhr's A2A capability is every bit as 'collateral damage' as the Hellfire's A2A capability. It's one of those 'you'd be surprised at what it can do' things, not it was 'designed for' ... it is a tertiary function, primary and secondary is armor/bunkers and soft targets.

 

It is true that some nations value different military capabilities more than others due to various geographical or political circumstances, but that's just the nature of things. Austrians don't much care for marines or naval forces, but nva, Soviets and Poland did care about their helicopter's air to air capability to give atleast a portion of their fleet a capability to fire air-air missiles.

 

I'm not too sure about the vikhr's anti-air capability being a happy accident either since it's also got a proximity fuze, whereas as far as I know the hellfire for example uses a impact fuze. Test fire footage also features it being used against aircraft, although admittedly I'm by no means an expert on the subject, and it's an anecdotal argument based on a single public video that I've seen (

).

 

Looking at other nation's purchases, the trend certainly was going towards the way of aa-missile armed combat helicopters before (although the scope and size can be argued to infinity), during and after the collapse. This development is evidenced by the asian apaches, Japanese OH-1's, European mangustas and eurocopters all being fitted with the capability to use air-air missiles from the design phase onwards, and I don't see any special reason why Soviets/Russia wouldn't want to keep up with the joneses in this regard, especially since the layout had already been put to use on hinds.

[Deathbane]

I think it would be a cool 'what if' addition, but what I' d be more interested is the Vikhr being 'buffed' by ED finally fixing how badly shrapnel is simulated.

 

Vikhrs are fine for engaging other helicopters, I have found - and the good news is that as Tharos says, you arnt wasting weight carrying a missile that cannot effectively be used against ground targets.

 

Not a huge military buff, but hopefully that makes some sense?

[Isegrim]

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

 

To the igla thing.... I think it will not happen to see the KA-50 equipped with those regulary by an update by ED. If used in a Mission or not is not a question of realism. It's part of what the Mission looks like and is about.

[Sceptre]

I hope if we ever see Mi-24, that these will be an option :)