Weapons

[GGTharos]

The Cobra in that case has a -specific- operational need to carry a sidewinder, when it acts as escort for S&R operations.

The Apache has had trials with the AIM-9, and to date, has never -ever- operationally required use of it, nor the Stinger stack, which it would be more likely to use.

Sidearm is a thing of the past, an ARM with very limited capabilities (though likely at least somewhat useful); right now any anti-radar work would be done by F-18's from a nearby carrier, and shortly by F-35's.

[Yellonet]

Nice, thanks for the info guys... I'll be looking forward to using the "grape shot" against infantry :devil_2:

[Ditch3r]

@ Sundowner:

Did you know that the new "Z" model cobra will not be able to use the Tow Missiles? I actually worked on the Z model prototypes and they are removing that feature. Instead they will be hellfire dependent, or at least that was the road they were heading down when I left the program. I'll see if I can't dig up some of my unclassified info on the Z model for ya. :)

[Sundowner.pl]

Yes I heard that too. Can't blame them actually, since the TOW2B F&F is dead in the water, that's a good move, Hellfire missiles exceed TOW in all aspects, except of the costs, but that's where those new laser guided Hydras are coming.

 

I got the pocket guide on both AH-1Z and UH-1Y from Bell Textron, and both are looking very interesting, and when I look at that Z Cobra, I can't help but notice how much it took from LHX (Comanche) program. It's going to be exceptionally good attack helo. Yet the CRS placement looks a bit weird... :smilewink:

[Avimimus]

Well, and how many types of weapons the Apache or the Cobra can load in " usual " combat sorties?. Again " usual ".

 

Hellfires ( ok different kind of guided hellfires ) and rockets plus the chain gun. The same more or less like the Hokum and nobody said nothing about USA couterparts.

 

Soviet helicopters have for decades used much more diverse armaments. The Russian philosophy is simply different. The mi-24 regularly carried bombs (including up to 10xfab-100s).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi-24

 

Anyway, being able to customise rocket pod loads would be a real plus in future versions of DCS. It would also be nice to see two and four tube loads for the APU-6.

 

As for the R-73 and Igla, I did some thinking: They would have a serious advantage over the 9A4172 in any close engagement. Lock time, tracking and maneuverability would likely be better. Out past three or four kilometres the Vikhr would have the upper hand (I recognise that these weapons have only been spotted as inert models on the Ka-52 - I am only attempting to explain the prevalence of AAMs on helicopters worldwide).

 

I am also curious about the reasons for the Kh-25 not being usable. GGTharos if you happen to notice the reference, let me know.

[Avimimus]

The Cobra in that case has a -specific- operational need to carry a sidewinder, when it acts as escort for S&R operations.

The Apache has had trials with the AIM-9, and to date, has never -ever- operationally required use of it, nor the Stinger stack, which it would be more likely to use.

Sidearm is a thing of the past, an ARM with very limited capabilities (though likely at least somewhat useful); right now any anti-radar work would be done by F-18's from a nearby carrier, and shortly by F-35's.

 

Of course there might be an application for a small government (that can't afford either jet). Wasn't there a field modification to allow an AH-1 to carry a Maverick?

 

Things might also be a bit different if the cold war had continued...

[amalahama]

...Bombs

• KMGU-2 / 96 AO-2.5 RT
  
• KMGU-2 / 99 PTAB-2.5 KO
  
• FAB - 250
  
• FAB - 500 M62

...

 

So, we are going to have bombs in BS??? Really good news!!!

 

Regards!

[Yellonet]

Does the Ka-50 have a bomb-mode? Or would we have to use "iron sights"?

[MarcPhoenix]

 

I am also curious about the reasons for the Kh-25 not being usable. GGTharos if you happen to notice the reference, let me know.

 

+1 ??? :detective:

 

TIA

[Mechanist]

I'm just really don't understand the concept of a Kh-25 in helicopters...

 

Kh-25MP/MPU: Need a different fire control system witch likely doesn't exist on Ka-50, beside it is useless because you can sneak to the SAM and destroy it with ATGM guns or rocket, even bombs if it is not an AAA...

 

Kh-25ML/L/A/T/TM: Maybe the L versions can be controlled by the fire control system/laser designator BUT, why do you need such missile? The only advantage of the Kh-25 is it's speed. When I fly the Su-25T i only use em if i want get rid of ADA-s fast, or i don't want to carry Vikhrs because of the drag factor. So my point is in a chopper you can't exploit these advantages (long distance-short time/less drag factor), and you can fit more useful weapons for those 4 pylons you have.

[GGTharos]

Soviet helicopters have for decades used much more diverse armaments. The Russian philosophy is simply different. The mi-24 regularly carried bombs (including up to 10xfab-100s).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mi-24

 

Yep, different philosophies.

 

Anyway, being able to customise rocket pod loads would be a real plus in future versions of DCS. It would also be nice to see two and four tube loads for the APU-6.

 

Only if the effects are well modeled though, which I am sad to say is not easy to do :(

 

As for the R-73 and Igla, I did some thinking: They would have a serious advantage over the 9A4172 in any close engagement. Lock time, tracking and maneuverability would likely be better. Out past three or four kilometres the Vikhr would have the upper hand (I recognise that these weapons have only been spotted as inert models on the Ka-52 - I am only attempting to explain the prevalence of AAMs on helicopters worldwide).

 

That's just it - there's no pravalence of AAMs on helicopters. Just the opposite. AAMs are tested or proposed as armament, but by and large not used. Also - the R-73 and Igla will have a serious advantage over the Vikhr at /all/ ranges in A2A. They're designed for A2A after all - theyare faster, they are fire and forget, they maneyver far better and far more freely, and believe you me, their ability to loft easily makes them outrange the Vikhr against a maneuvering target.

 

I am also curious about the reasons for the Kh-25 not being usable. GGTharos if you happen to notice the reference, let me know.

 

 

I only vaguely remember that it was mentioned by (I believe) someone from the ED team on the Russian forums - I was babelfishing it and the translation was not very good ... I interpreted it as either having too much recoil from the missile being launched, or too radical a CG shift, coupled with the tactical uselessness of this missile being used by a helicopter (You may as well just deliver it via attack aircraft isntead).

[GGTharos]

No, not really - the SIDEARM is very limited - it requires use of a different guidance head for each band or sometimes type of radar that it has to attack ... it's quite in-flexible and lacks intelligence. Basically helicopters should stay the heck away from any SAM they can't sneak up on and destroy using their regular weapons.

 

As for Mavericks - these are no field mods, AFAIK ... Mavericks were tested and cleared for these choppers, but again considered tactically limiting since a helicopter can achieve more in it intended role with its regular payload. Putting a maverick on a heli is a bit of a waste.

 

If the cold war had continued, you'd see little AAM or Maverick use by helis. Or Kh-25's.

 

The helicopter's job is to rapidly take out multiple enemy tanks or APCS, or supress and destroy infantry, not fight other helis. They simply don't have /time/ for it. And carrying Kh-25's or Mavericks limits the amount of armor they can kill in one sortie compared to their regular payload.

 

Understand, Fulda Gap is a scenario of pure attrition. It's about who can kill the fastest, and the most, and for the western side they would have to be VERY fast at it and VERY effective because reinforcements were a minimum of 2 weeks away, and the Soviets had twice the armor, more IADS, and devastating artillery capability.

 

So NATO would rely on technological superiority where the 'how many can you take on at one time' measure counts for quite a lot.

 

 

Of course there might be an application for a small government (that can't afford either jet). Wasn't there a field modification to allow an AH-1 to carry a Maverick?

 

Things might also be a bit different if the cold war had continued...

[Avimimus]

Thanks Tharos,

 

It is interesting that the Maverick was officially cleared. The story I heard was more along the lines of a "maverick" maverick being fired from a AH-1 somewhere in the middle east (in anycase it was a single occurrence).

 

Of course, not all helicopters were designed for anti-armour work. The Mi-8 and Mi-24 would better be described as escort and support platforms. In areas where the anti-aircraft capability was already largely destroyed they would be called in to help mop up or take out earthworks and chokepoints at the tactical scale. Certainly this role would continue for the more specialised tank hunters (Mi-28, Ka-50) as well.

 

While it would be of limited use against armour and be slower to accelerate than the 9A4172, the Kh-25 would certainly be of considerable use on a helicopter. One simply needs to get away from the Ah-64 vs. tank viewpoint.

 

The Kh-25 would provide a considerable stand off capability (protecting the launch platform from manpads and air defenses) and delivery a large warhead (90kg). Think about the demolition targets: earthworks, bunkers, building complexes... all of which would benefit from having a warhead that is eighteen times the size of the next smaller missile (the Vikhr only has about 5kg).

 

On the other topics: I believe that simple "eyeballing" was used for bomb delivery in earlier helicopters (and worked well with a bit of practice). The Aim-9 and AGM-122 may both be of extra weight and limited use from a helicopter but if I actually encountered a suitable threat I certainly wouldn't be against having them with me...

[MarcPhoenix]

Thanks too CG :thumbup:

 

:)

[GGTharos]

Thanks Tharos,

 

It is interesting that the Maverick was officially cleared. The story I heard was more along the lines of a "maverick" maverick being fired from a AH-1 somewhere in the middle east (in anycase it was a single occurrence).

 

Probably a special mission, assuming it wasn't a rumor altogether.

 

 

The Kh-25 would provide a considerable stand off capability (protecting the launch platform from manpads and air defenses) and delivery a large warhead (90kg). Think about the demolition targets: earthworks, bunkers, building complexes... all of which would benefit from having a warhead that is eighteen times the size of the next smaller missile (the Vikhr only has about 5kg).

 

But again, you may as well deliver such a weapon using an attack aircraft which was designed to do so from the get-go, and use the heli at what it does best - tank busting/infantry support.

I mean, theoretically you could stick AMRAAMs and GBUs on an apache too, but there isn't much point in doing so.

 

On the other topics: I believe that simple "eyeballing" was used for bomb delivery in earlier helicopters (and worked well with a bit of practice). The Aim-9 and AGM-122 may both be of extra weight and limited use from a helicopter but if I actually encountered a suitable threat I certainly wouldn't be against having them with me...

 

 

But I bet you those who DO use them would mind giving them to you. There's more to it than just what you want ;)

[Sundowner.pl]

Well, I haven't seen AH-1s with AGM-65, but seen those hanging from SH-2s. it was meant to be an anti-ship missile, because, the harpoon was a bit to big for a helo, and there was nothing else at that time (before the Penguin came). Yet the SH-2 + Maverick combo was used couple of times during the Vietnam conflict to attack land targets.

[Avimimus]

I know this has been covered to death but did I just spot an inert R-73 on a hovering Ka-50?

 

If the information materializes and there is enough time I still think it would be neat to see this (as well as a larger diversity of bombs and customised rocket mixtures in some future version of DCS).

 

But again, you may as well deliver such a weapon using an attack aircraft which was designed to do so from the get-go, and use the heli at what it does best - tank busting/infantry support.

I mean, theoretically you could stick AMRAAMs and GBUs on an apache too, but there isn't much point in doing so.

 

Then how do you explain the use of iron bombs on Russian helicopters (Mi-8, Mi-24 and Ka-50)? Those are weapons that theoretically should only be carried by fixed winged aircraft. Yet there seems to be a role for them. There are plenty of demolition targets for a weapon with eighteen times the firepower of a Vikhr and a considerable stand off capability.

[Groove]

I think the A-A missile was used for tests.

 

OT: At 1:29 minute of the video you can see a Mercedes with German licence plates still attached. They are from Dortmund, a city 20 km away from here :D

[Force_Feedback]

On the Kh-25, in lomac it's called the 'Kh-25MPU' but in fact it's the Kh-25MP, the MPU has a 340km range, hence the U for 'improved'.

If ED uses the argument of not adding the Igla-V or R-73 to the Kh-50 'because it's not used', then they also can omit the 12 Vikhr missiles, and only allow for 4 to be carried (realistic), half or 1/3 full rocket pods, no gun pods and no bombs at all. Just admit that there is not enough info on the Igla-V and that the R-73 was and will never be used for the same reason the Ka-50 has no RWR; it was never intended as a battlefield chopper, and terrorists/rebels/people that not agree with you usually don't have the €€€ to buy all that radar guided stuff.

[Weta43]

Because it's not used is - as FFB say's no argument - it could be if the plane's capable of carrying it.

 

Not knowing HOW it's used could be a legitimate reason if you're trying to make what you do include realistic (as for modeling A-10A vs A-10C - 'most players won't be able to tell what's wrong' isn't a good starting point)

[Flanker15]

If the KA-50 doesn't have any A2A missiles how is it to defend itself against another helicopter, it doesn't have a turret cannon like other helicopters can use instead.

[GGTharos]

Well, it points at the other helicopter and fires - that's what this maneuverability thing was all about I thought!

 

In addition, it can use the Vikhrs in AA mode.

[Flanker15]

In addition, it can use the Vikhrs in AA mode.

Oh so the Vikhrs has a special AA mode in BS? How does this work? I used Vikhrs to shoot down helicopters in FC but it was rather time consuming and fiddly to lock a fast target.

Side question: I was studying the cannon on the BS and it is supposed to be the same model as the Mi-28's cannon but the one on the Havoc looks smaller or is it that the Havoc is much bigger?

[Mugatu]

Might be dead b4 you get to point, but then again it's probably not going to be operating where other enemy helo's are!!

 

Well, it points at the other helicopter and fires - that's what this maneuverability thing was all about I thought!

 

In addition, it can use the Vikhrs in AA mode.

[Ayane]

Same gun, both are 30 mm 2A42 A/C, used on the BMP-2 IFV.. Just mounted differently.

 

Would the Rate of Fire be adjusted on the BS?