U.S Weapons on the Ka-50

[CASoldier2014]

So yeah, I think these pictures speak for themselves ;)

 

 

It looks pretty good, though.

 

 

What do you guys think?

[Isegrim]

I think its a downgrade. Especially those Hellfire missiles.

[BaD CrC]

Well, since we have the US skin for Ka 50, why not some US weapons. We played a couple of times with the lua files to include the hellfires long time ago in my squad, but it never really made it to the 'serious' missions.

[RightStuff]

I think its a downgrade. Especially those Hellfire missiles.

 

Why?

[Looney]

What is the guidance of the hellfires? mm wave radio or laser? Does it use the vihkr guidance and is it only the skin of the hellfire that is used or is it the complete weapon system?

[Isegrim]

Why?

 

Less range less speed. ( ingame Hellfire )

[CASoldier2014]

What is the guidance of the hellfires? mm wave radio or laser? Does it use the vihkr guidance and is it only the skin of the hellfire that is used or is it the complete weapon system?

 

The ones in the pictures are the AGM-114K Hellfires, which are laser-guided. They work as a complete weapon system and have nothing to do with the Vikhr. They have their own parameters and etc. After using them for quite a bit, I came down to these conclusions:

 

• They have a slightly shorter range than the Vikhr
  
• They travel much slower than the Vikhr
  
• YOU CAN FIRE THEM AT A VERY HIGH ANGLE! (As far as the Shkval sensor can look left/right)
  
• You can guide them all the way OR you can use them as a sort of fire-and-forget type of weapon by turning the laser designator off after firing (It will continue to fly towards the target and will hit it if it's not moving)
  
• You can carry up to 16 of them and they look AMAZING! :D
  
• And unlike the Vikhr, you can change their flight trajectory as much as you want
  

[Darkwolf]

You can guide them all the way OR you can use them as a sort of fire-and-forget type of weapon by turning the laser designator off after firing (It will continue to fly towards the target and will hit it if it's not moving)

 

Then they is definitively something wrong. Surely the way guidance is scripted.

[CASoldier2014]

Then they is definitively something wrong. Surely the way guidance is scripted.

 

Could be, since it's only made for the A.I right now.. Or maybe it has some sort of memory and continues to fly in the same heading.

[OutOnTheOP]

Less range less speed. ( ingame Hellfire )

 

Ok, but the REAL-world Hellfire is a considerably more useful weapon for several reasons:

 

1) Top-attack profile. Strikes the weakest armor, making it actually capable of destroying modern tanks. The Vikhr, with a direct-attack profile and tiny (130mm) diameter warhead would fail to perforate the primary armor of pretty much any modern MBT. This means that unless you can set up a side-attack profile, you're out of luck. Setting up that attack profile would probably put you right in the heart of tactical ADA systems' engagement zones, though. The Hellfire's attack profile also means the missile can be fired from a helicopter in ground clutter, without striking an obstacle on the way to the target

 

2) LOAL launch modes. An OH-58 can provide a grid and terminal lasing. Or a COLT team can. Or FIST team. Or JTAC party. Or anything with a laser designator (even an A-10!). The launching helo never even needs to unmask from terrain to deliver them.

 

3) SAL guidance means you can actually ripple-fire several and slew onto sequential targets (best accomplished with LOAL launch mode). You don't have to wait for each engagement to complete before starting the next.

 

4) MUCH larger acceptable launch window. The missile can maneuver onto targets more freely; the helicopter doesn't have to be pointed straight at the target. Makes for much faster subsequent target engagements.

 

5) Better after-armor effects. The larger-diameter warhead in the Hellfire (178mm vs the 130mm Vikhr), in addition to being better at punching holes through armor (generally speaking, shape charge penetration is directly related to warhead diameter- yet wikipedia claims 1000mm rHA for the Vikhr's tiny warhead. LOL, no.), also does a lot more damage to the inside of the vehicle, simply because the shape charge liner has more mass, and the displaced spall from the interior of the armor is greater due to the larger diameter warhead. The small-diameter warhead of the Vikhr would likely have after-armor effects more similar to a PR-7VR warhead (due to charge diameter), which I've see in person effects on a light armor vehicle, and it was... uh, unimpressive. The spall managed to sever a cable on a radio junction box, and that was the ONLY damage done inside the vehicle.

Edited July 2, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[CASoldier2014]

Ok, but the REAL-world Hellfire is a considerably more useful weapon for several reasons:

 

1) Top-attack profile. Strikes the weakest armor, making it actually capable of destroying modern tanks. The Vikhr, with a direct-attack profile and tiny (130mm) diameter warhead would fail to perforate the primary armor of pretty much any modern MBT. This means that unless you can set up a side-attack profile, you're out of luck. Setting up that attack profile would probably put you right in the heart of tactical ADA systems' engagement zones, though. The Hellfire's attack profile also means the missile can be fired from a helicopter in ground clutter, without striking an obstacle on the way to the target

 

2) LOAL launch modes. An OH-58 can provide a grid and terminal lasing. Or a COLT team can. Or FIST team. Or JTAC party. Or anything with a laser designator (even an A-10!). The launching helo never even needs to unmask from terrain to deliver them.

 

3) SAL guidance means you can actually ripple-fire several and slew onto sequential targets (best accomplished with LOAL launch mode). You don't have to wait for each engagement to complete before starting the next.

 

4) MUCH larger acceptable launch window. The missile can maneuver onto targets more freely; the helicopter doesn't have to be pointed straight at the target. Makes for much faster subsequent target engagements.

 

5) Better after-armor effects. The larger-diameter warhead in the Hellfire (178mm vs the 130mm Vikhr), in addition to being better at punching holes through armor (generally speaking, shape charge penetration is directly related to warhead diameter- yet wikipedia claims 1000mm rHA for the Vikhr's tiny warhead. LOL, no.), also does a lot more damage to the inside of the vehicle, simply because the shape charge liner has more mass, and the displaced spall from the interior of the armor is greater due to the larger diameter warhead. The small-diameter warhead of the Vikhr would likely have after-armor effects more similar to a PR-7VR warhead (due to charge diameter), which I've see in person effects on a light armor vehicle, and it was... uh, unimpressive. The spall managed to sever a cable on a radio junction box, and that was the ONLY damage done inside the vehicle.

 

Agreed :D

[CASoldier2014]

Besides, if the Hellfire doesn't fit you, then you can use the AGM-65E (seen in the pictures) and take advantage of the 15 km. maximum range of the Shkval's laser designator.

[King_Hrothgar]

If you're going the modding route, you can also carry 24x Vikhrs. 24 of the little buggers is an awful lot of tank busting power, even if the individual missiles aren't anything special. And yes it works just fine. You have to point the chopper's nose at the target prior to launching, but that's really not an issue.

 

Edit: I should stick 8x R-60's on it one of these days. Could have some fun with that. :D

[CASoldier2014]

If you're going the modding route, you can also carry 24x Vikhrs. 24 of the little buggers is an awful lot of tank busting power, even if the individual missiles aren't anything special. And yes it works just fine. You have to point the chopper's nose at the target prior to launching, but that's really not an issue.

 

Edit: I should stick 8x R-60's on it one of these days. Could have some fun with that. :D

 

Yeah, I've already tried that, but I don't like that it doesn't slew vertically.

 

If you want A-A weapons, try this guide :DDD

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=99574

[Ce_Zeta]

5) Better after-armor effects. The larger-diameter warhead in the Hellfire (178mm vs the 130mm Vikhr), in addition to being better at punching holes through armor (generally speaking, shape charge penetration is directly related to warhead diameter- yet wikipedia claims 1000mm rHA for the Vikhr's tiny warhead. LOL, no.), also does a lot more damage to the inside of the vehicle, simply because the shape charge liner has more mass, and the displaced spall from the interior of the armor is greater due to the larger diameter warhead. The small-diameter warhead of the Vikhr would likely have after-armor effects more similar to a PR-7VR warhead (due to charge diameter), which I've see in person effects on a light armor vehicle, and it was... uh, unimpressive. The spall managed to sever a cable on a radio junction box, and that was the ONLY damage done inside the vehicle.

:megalol: Can you explain your affirmation? after-armor effects are a consecuence of the diameter of the warhead? :doh::pilotfly:

[OutOnTheOP]

:megalol: Can you explain your affirmation? after-armor effects are a consecuence of the diameter of the warhead? :doh::pilotfly:

 

Essentially, yes. Given a similar generation of warheads, the larger diameter one will penetrate a deeper, wider channel through the armor. Most after-armor effects are produced by spall, rather than by the HEAT jet itself. A wider, deeper channel means more volume of spall. Also, since the Hellfire penetrates through the top armor, where it is many times thinner than the main belt (IE, 40-70mm RHAe instead of 600-1300mm RHAe), a higher proportion of the actual shape charge liner and overpressure enters the fighting compartment of the vehicle.

 

Note that I am not saying that charge diameter is the ONLY determinant of post-armor effects; design and liner material comes into play as well. But the warhead on contemporary Hellfire is every bit as advanced in design, and also LARGER. As a general rule of thumb, western ATGM generally uses a more efficient liner material, as well; commonly tantalum instead of copper. I'm uncertain what is used on the Vikhr liner, though, so that's not worth arguing.

 

A great deal of assessment can be pretty accurately based on warhead diameter when it comes to HEAT warheads. Much like a great deal about the performance of APFSDS can be very accurately assessed based solely on rod length-to-diameter ratio.

 

Please also note that, despite your failure to refute the point with anything approaching factual information or technical assessment, I still respond by explaining my reasoning in a civil tone, rather than resorting to immediate mockery. Please extend that courtesy to individuals with whom you disagree on here. Otherwise, people might think you're a biased fanboi at best, or just a total a**clown.

Edited July 3, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[Ce_Zeta]

Essentially, yes. Given a similar generation of warheads, the larger diameter one will penetrate a deeper, wider channel through the armor. Most after-armor effects are produced by spall, rather than by the HEAT jet itself. A wider, deeper channel means more volume of spall. Also, since the Hellfire penetrates through the top armor, where it is many times thinner than the main belt (IE, 40-70mm RHAe instead of 600-1300mm RHAe), a higher proportion of the actual shape charge liner and overpressure enters the fighting compartment of the vehicle.

 

Note that I am not saying that charge diameter is the ONLY determinant of post-armor effects; design and liner material comes into play as well. But the warhead on contemporary Hellfire is every bit as advanced in design, and also LARGER. As a general rule of thumb, western ATGM generally uses a more efficient liner material, as well; commonly tantalum instead of copper. I'm uncertain what is used on the Vikhr liner, though, so that's not worth arguing.

 

A great deal of assessment can be pretty accurately based on warhead diameter when it comes to HEAT warheads. Much like a great deal about the performance of APFSDS can be very accurately assessed based solely on rod length-to-diameter ratio.

 

Please also note that, despite your failure to refute the point with anything approaching factual information or technical assessment, I still respond by explaining my reasoning in a civil tone, rather than resorting to immediate mockery. Please extend that courtesy to individuals with whom you disagree on here. Otherwise, people might think you're a biased fanboi at best, or just a total a**clown.

Yeah, Thanks for your answer.

Yesterday, I didn't refute your point. Nopes. I wanted to know how you find your conclusions, what's the ideas behind your opinion.

 

Sorry for the mockery, but I hate when people use rules of thumb in a bad way. Rules of thumb are very dangerous.

 

Often, people forget that the rules of thumb are good when you know how to use it in a good manner, for our stuff. But always it's a bad idea extrapolate our rules of thumb to another technology. It's a common mistake.

 

Why it's a mistake? Well, When you are using a rule of thumb, you are assuming some facts, simplifying a complex problem in order to reduce the parameters involved...So with the rule of thumb a very complex problem like this, can be reduced to 1 parameter, the diameter of the warhead. The rule of thumb works when the problem was approached with the same strategy.

It's a disaster when the designer attack the problem with another strategy, then, the rule of thumb don't work.:doh:

 

It's a big problem when you committed this mistake 'cause you lost the focus on the real parameters, "master parameters" ( it works always). The link between diameter of the warhead and the penetration of the warhead is only a local parameter (works only, when many assuptions are true).

 

Given a similar generation of warheads, the larger diameter one will penetrate a deeper, wider channel through the armor.

Nopes.

The armour penetration is driven by the kinetic energy of the jet and the properties of the liner to keep the mass working as a fluid (due to the high velocity and pressure gradient).

 

The relation between the diameter of the warhead and the diameter of the jet is also inconsistent. Many many assupmtions are done here. Diameter of the warhead=diameter of the shaped cone first of all, but the important fact is the shape of the plume. The shape of the plume is formed by the energy released by the explosives.

 

And, a wider jet means more contact area, less speed and less temperature in these areas. It's not good for penetrate an armour. It's better make a long jet because with a longer jet you can penetrate more thickness (with the same speed at the tip of the jet and same liner material, the longer jet, the better).

 

The hellfire can have a longer jet? or maybe the Vikhr? I don't know, but the diameter of the warhead is not a evidence in one or another way.

 

But the warhead on contemporary Hellfire is every bit as advanced in design, and also LARGER.

The important thing, missing in your post is the energy. All is driven by the energy. That's the problem of work with rule of thumbs. You lost the focus on the important parameters.

 

American and Russian designers can be walked different ways, always focused in optimize the release of energy to the liner. They can use different explosives, different liner materials and shapes...

 

As a general rule of thumb, western ATGM generally uses a more efficient liner material, as well; commonly tantalum instead of copper. I'm uncertain what is used on the Vikhr liner, though, so that's not worth arguing.

Ta is used since the 70s in warheads. And Yeah, this one master parameter. The density, thermal properties and mechanical properties are a key in the formation of the plume jet.

 

But, seriously dude, Russians aren't stoopid, they used other liners. I mean, in 40 years I am sure that some of the Russian designers started a research to use other materials as a liners., sure.

[CASoldier2014]

Some good 90s footage that compares the Vikhr-M to its western counterparts:

 

9A4172 Vikhr characteristics:

 

[Looney]

My Russian sucks, is there a translation somewhere?

[OutOnTheOP]

But, seriously dude, Russians aren't stoopid, they used other liners. I mean, in 40 years I am sure that some of the Russian designers started a research to use other materials as a liners., sure.

 

And yet, neither of us has the precise geometry of the Vikhr warhead, do we?

 

So, assuming that Russians aren't "stoopid", and Americans are likewise not, then we can assume that the technological sophistication of the warheads is equivalent. All else being equal, the larger warhead is the better.

 

Particularly when it attacks top armor, while the other attacks front or side.

 

As to the jet being wider... no, really? I mentioned that already. That's actually a good thing in this context; it doesn't require terribly deep penetration to perforate top armor, and a wider channel means more displaced spall= better after armor effects.

 

You have, if anything, only further reinforced my point.

[CASoldier2014]

My Russian sucks, is there a translation somewhere?

 

http://www.airwar.ru/weapon/aat/vichr.html

Use google translate ;)

[Ce_Zeta]

And yet, neither of us has the precise geometry of the Vikhr warhead, do we?

 

So, assuming that Russians aren't "stoopid", and Americans are likewise not, then we can assume that the technological sophistication of the warheads is equivalent. All else being equal, the larger warhead is the better.

 

Particularly when it attacks top armor, while the other attacks front or side.

 

As to the jet being wider... no, really? I mentioned that already. That's actually a good thing in this context; it doesn't require terribly deep penetration to perforate top armor, and a wider channel means more displaced spall= better after armor effects.

 

You have, if anything, only further reinforced my point.

You understand nothing :( 'cause you are doing nothing to understand it. :joystick: The typical choice, knowledge without effort :megalol::smartass:

 

You cannot assume that "technological sophistication of the warheads is equivalent" means that the designers take the same path to solve the same problem. Sometimes is truth, yeah , but here, we are talking about very complex problems. As I wrote, the designers can take different ways (shape of the liner, material of the liner, detonation of the explosives...).

 

So, we can assume that "Technological sophistication of the warheads is equivalent" means that similar penetration values for the same conditions, have a high probability. But Without enough data, we are only assuming that. And of couse, the flight profile of the Hellfire is an advantage over the Vikhr.

 

You are using again a rule of thumb and using it in a bad way. And that's happens when the people don't understand complex things. They are happy because they think that they can deal with these complex problems with rules of thumbs.:megalol:. This give you a false sense of knowledge and, a false sense of safety. And then accidents happen.

 

You should take the risk and try to understand the real problem, drop the rule of thumb and understand how works the real thing. Only, when you understand how works a HEAT warhead, you can apply the rule of thumbs with guarantees, 'cause then, you will have a strong criterion based in knowledge. It's the hardest path, but Bro, is the best path, I can assure you that.:book::smartass::thumbup:

 

You, as a designer, don't want a wider jet. Because a wider jet implies less penetration. We are diverting energy from the main objective, penetrate the armour plate. And the hypothetical benefit is very marginal. The spalls with the high velocity are in a ballistic trayectory and is the shock wave which really works fine, and isn't a variable of the hole diameter).

[OutOnTheOP]

[

You understand nothing 'cause you are doing nothing to understand it. The typical choice, knowledge without effort

 

I'm reminded of a quote regarding fools resorting to mockery when they have nothing meaningful to say.

 

You have added precisely nothing meaningful to the discussion. You insist that I am wrong, but fail to make any convincing argument of why: you say that I'm "naive" and make "bad assumptions", yet you have not once presented any information cogent to the discussion. You expect that if you act superior long enough, that people will assume you somehow know better.

 

You also clearly know MUCH less about shaped charge dynamics than you seek to present yourself as. If you knew anything, you would have posted it. I can, if you like, direct you to some research papers on the subject. They all (ALL!) indicate that depth of penetration scales linearly with charge diameter (though that, in turn, requires a greater standoff of detonation, as the optimal standoff also scales linearly with charge diameter). They also indicate that penetration scales almost linearly with explosives burn rate... but good luck finding explosives that are more than marginally faster burning than those already in use.

 

Optimal design is well known. The optimal liner angle is close to 45 degrees. So making a bigger, deeper warhead (the only option you have, when limited by a narrow missile body) is not going to greatly increase penetration. Full stop. The best charge is as big in diameter as feasible, with a generally 45 degree cone, and the more explosives you can pack behind it the better, but you get rapidly diminishing returns after two charge diameters length of explosives.

 

So, we can either assume that the larger diameter charge has deeper penetration, OR we can assume that the Russians have somehow, in total secrecy, developed explosives with burn rates RADICALLY higher (on the order of 30-40% higher) than that used in the west, or are using some hitherto unknown element in their shape charge liners to give penetration far out of line with those designed to date. I know which I'm more likely to assume, and it's not that the Russians have magical science.

 

You, as a designer, don't want a wider jet. Because a wider jet implies less penetration. We are diverting energy from the main objective, penetrate the armour plate. And the hypothetical benefit is very marginal. The spalls with the high velocity are in a ballistic trayectory and is the shock wave which really works fine, and isn't a variable of the hole diameter).

 

Aha; here it becomes obvious you haven't a clue what you're talking about; I'm talking about CHARGE diameter. Jet diameter is an entirely different thing. Also, you have clearly never read a damn thing about wound dynamics, because overpressure is a HORRIBLY ineffective wounding mechanism against people, and even LESS effective against machinery. If you want to kill a vehicle, PARTICULARLY a combat vehicle, you want to fill it with as many high-velocity projectiles (be they spall or primary projectiles) as possible. The very best effects you can hope for are to ignite onboard fuel and ammunition; you generally aren't going to do that with overpressure (unless we're talking truly ridiculous overpressures that would lead to sympathetic detonation, but that would require absurdly large munitions to cause that manner of effect). Hot fragments rupturing ammunition, however, is quite good at that.

 

Also: the main objective is not to "penetrate the armor plate", it is to KILL THE VEHICLE. The mechanism of the kill is inconsequential. If the most efficient way is to target vulnerable points with a warhead that is less penetrative, but produces more spall and after-armor effects, then it is aside the point whether it penetrates further or not (but, again, larger-diameter HEAT WILL penetrate further). What is important is the effect it has on the vehicle, the crew, and the overall function of both. If you're striking a point with only 40-60mm of armor, why would it even MATTER if you didn't have 1000+mm of penetration? If penetration was all that mattered, HESH would never have been invented.

 

Go away, troll.

Edited July 4, 2015 by OutOnTheOP

[GGTharos]

The warhead argument is done. Next post that fails to be COMPLETELY DEVOID OF ANY PERSONAL ATTACKS gets deleted, people get warned, and it'll get ugly quickly.

 

When I said it's done, I include any snarky or veiled attempts at snark as well.

[McBlemmen]

How did you do this?