Please give us Air to Air weapons.

[Mugenjin]

In fact, from what I've seen, most of the internet thinks that about the people on these boards.

 

:megalol:

[winz]

. Plus, it takes extreme amounts of effort and time to lock up said fast moving targets with the shkval.

Wait, you're saying that it is extreme amounts of effort to lock a target with a auto-tracking, not-fixed targeting device like skhval, and yet you have the guts to say, that you would be able to bore-sight aim the missile...

I'm impressed :)

[Speed]

If A2A missiles isnt in standard payload of KA50 when it shot at chechen terrorists it doesnt mean it cant carry those. I guess some people just dont know how to think outside the box. And please stop being retarded and saying that KA50 cant carry A2A missiles. Its like saying that M4 is better than AK47. Just wrong

I agree that the argument “But the Ka-50 doesn’t carry air to air missiles!!” is a irrelevant and misses the point. The question is not whether the Ka-50 carries air to air missiles; the question is whether the Ka-50 can carry air to air missiles. There seems to be conflicting information on this. Personally, I’m going to believe that ED has the more correct information on this issue, as they had contact with Kamov. Just because there are buttons and switches in the Ka-50 dealing with air to air ordinance does not mean that they finished implementing this possibility on the Ka-50. This was the Soviet Union, and then a cash-starved Russian military. Quite possibly, they were planning on having A2A capability, and so installed the cockpit switches, but then the funding and motivation disappeared to finish the job.

It’s not a clear-cut case though, as there is another side to the argument. Depending on how “finished” the implementation of A2A weapons was on the real Ka-50, the Russian military might be able to rapidly finish implementing them (if they truly did not already) should the need for A2A weapons arise. If that is the case, then it is actually more realistic to have air to air weapons in some of these missions where we find ourselves up against enemy helos. I don’t care what others might say about “fighters provide air cover”… that is an ideal scenario and war does not follow your ideal scenarios. Sorry. It doesn’t. Stop day-dreaming about the fighter cover that for whatever reason, will NOT always be there.

It’s really all a bunch of BS, with no hard info. Overall, I’m going to trust ED with this one, but you never know…

I do have a question though, where had they planned on putting the A2A missiles on the Ka-50? If it was in place of Vikhrs, then I can’t see how they ever would do it, even in the scenario I described in paragraph 2 of this post.

[GGTharos]

The fact THAT IT DOES NOT CARRY THOSE means that IT DOES NOT CARRY THOSE.

 

It has nothing to do with thinking in or out of the box. If you want fantasy aircraft, you can find them in other games.

 

Anything/anyone can carry anti-air missiles. Do YOU carry an Igla to work every day? No? Guess what you will NOT have in DCS: ==SE==Zoky ;)

 

If A2A missiles isnt in standard payload of KA50 when it shot at chechen terrorists it doesnt mean it cant carry those. I guess some people just dont know how to think outside the box. And please stop being retarded and saying that KA50 cant carry A2A missiles. Its like saying that M4 is better than AK47. Just wrong :doh:

[GGTharos]

The controls for all of this have even been put in the Kamov ( both AA selection and ejection controls ). So obviously, it has been thought of.

 

And obviously it was never implemented - not in the Ka-50. Just because you have a button on the stick does not mean it is wired. Get over it.

 

For some reason, and I totally disagree with it,

 

... that would be because you don't know the reason. That reason is that AAMs are largely useless within the context of the Ka-50. Helicopter-borne AAMs are only now becoming something that is looked at as more than curiosity, and not even on all platforms. For the most part, they're plain not needed. Even some current helicopters are not equipping them.

 

However, that doesn't mean that they can't carry them, as has been demonstrated.

 

Go ahead and demonstrate which helis carry or carried AAM in combat. I know of exactly two cases, and in neither case were those helicopters ACTUALLY involved in any real A2A battle - IIRC. Those that were, used their A2G weapons. Do you know of any others?

 

I don't like being helpless against AA threats and having to wait for the jet cavalry to come rescue me. I prefer to fight.

 

Tough. Do what real heli pilots are trained to do: Avoid and evade. High fidelity simulation is not based on your preferences. It simulates the aircraft as is, not as you want it. Have you noticed that even the CMS is not ingegrated into your stick in the shark?

 

Personally, except for discharge strengths of certain rockets, I don't see why this heavy gunship couldn't carry anything the Su-25T can.

 

Because you don't actually know much of anything about these weapons. But even if we consider iglas which technically might not take up a rack or have weight issues, you're still looking at new wiring and in general things that DO NOT EXIST in the Ka-50 as is found IN SERVICE. You are flying an in-service Ka-50, and you get what it has in RL, not what you'd like it to have. You work with what you're given.

 

If you really don't like encounters with Apaches, guess what - delete them. The Ka-50 wouldn't be operating anywhere near them anyway: It's mission is to go after insurgents/terrorists, it is no longer fit to fight in the modern battlefield vs. modern threats.

 

As for the missiles, pics of 6 vihker missiles on one hard point have been shown. I think thats excellent. Enough for one team member to carry on a hard point without sacrificing much in the way of AG load. If you think you might encounter a jet on CAP, 2 R-73's could be carried. I have fought jets in Shark by hiding behind hills and letting them overshoot me, but the shkval can rarely ( if ever ) lock them up, and the vihker simply cannot turn fast enough to hit them. Even Iglas would have a good chance of a hit in this situation. So in the end, I prefer to run AND FIGHT.

 

Do what you prefer with the equipment you're given. THe fidelity of the sim isn't being altered because you want the heli to do something it does not do.

[GGTharos]

I agree that the argument “But the Ka-50 doesn’t carry air to air missiles!!” is a irrelevant and misses the point.

 

Wrong - that is the only relevant question. F-15C's CAN carry A2G payloads too, but they do NOT.

It’s not a clear-cut case though, as there is another side to the argument. Depending on how “finished” the implementation of A2A weapons was on the real Ka-50, the Russian military might be able to rapidly finish implementing them (if they truly did not already) should the need for A2A weapons arise. If that is the case, then it is actually more realistic to have air to air weapons in some of these missions where we find ourselves up against enemy helos. I don’t care what others might say about “fighters provide air cover”… that is an ideal scenario and war does not follow your ideal scenarios. Sorry. It doesn’t. Stop day-dreaming about the fighter cover that for whatever reason, will NOT always be there.

And no one cares what you say or think is 'more realistic' according to you. What is realistic is that the Ka-50 DOES NOT DEPLOY WITH AAMs. Perhaps you should be the one to stop daydreaming about your 'mods to helis' scenario.

 

I do have a question though, where had they planned on putting the A2A missiles on the Ka-50? If it was in place of Vikhrs, then I can’t see how they ever would do it, even in the scenario I described in paragraph 2 of this post.

AAMs have been tested on a number of helicopters. Some Mi-24's carried them in the 'cessna and weather baloon intercept' missions near the East-West borders (fighters couldn't slow down enough to deal with say a low flying cessna-like plane, helis didn't have a problem with this).

 

They have been tested on Apaches, but never implemented. They MAY have been tested on Ka-50s, but were never implemented. As far as we know, the Mi-28 doesn't sport igla's either, but it has the capability - IIRC.

 

The only US chopper to carry AAMs into combat is the Marine Cobra in missions that are clearly oriented around defending the extraction chopper from other helis or ground threats - these guys actually train for A2A in this respect.

 

Other helis in the US and Europe are seeing experiments with AAMs: The Tiger and the Kiowa. The Apache has a hellfire payload that probably make short work of any airborne slow-mover ... it has an RL kill against a slow fixed-wing aircraft already.

 

In short, AAMs are generally not needed to be carried by helicopters - there have only been two missions in which those weapons have been assigned and those were SPECIFICALLY A2A missions of rather narrow parameters.

 

Wishing the Ka-50 did it does not make it so. I would be surprised to see this helicopter get any major upgrades at all when more capable helicopters are being purchased by the Russian military.

[Pyroflash]

+1 :thumbup:

 

Also, I reiterate my previous comments on the subject matter experts. You can't honestly say that you know more about an aircraft than the people who design, build, fly, and maintain them. Because those are the people ED gets their information from.

 

If you think you do know more, please provide us with your credentials. A wiring diagram and design schematics for the Ka-50 would also be nice. Maybe some of the software code for the A-A missile modes. No? that's too bad, I thought for a minute there that you actually knew what you were talking about from firsthand experience... oh well.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Pyroflash

[Henchman14]

You know GG, I don't even bother reading your stuff anymore. Your company is really hard headed and this is what pisses people off. Ever heard the saying "The customer is always right"? Funny how you had no problem mounting Kh-25s when I have never seen a single pic of them on a copter. Since your obviously not going to even think about things, would your company please tell us which files we need to mod to bring this in? I am definitely tired of being shot down by cheating air AI, and my only chance against them is Igla's or R-73s.

 

@Speed - Thanks for the nice, reasonable post. As for where to mount, I see no reason Iglas couldn't be mounted on the inner ports. R-73's might have to be mounted on the outer, because of their exhaust. Kind of like Kh-25s. Not really sure how exhaust would effect the engines. However, Iglas look like they have no more exhaust than any unguided rocket.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Henchman14

[GGTharos]

You know GG, I don't even bother reading your stuff anymore. Your company is really hard headed and this is what pisses people off.

 

You know henchman, it isn't my company. But I suppose since you don't like the fact that people take the time to explain why things are as they are to you because you're too hard-headed to realize that you cannot always have thigns your way, I suppose I won't bother reading your stuff any more either.

 

Ever heard the saying "The customer is always right"?

Yeah, funny how that's wrong.

 

Funny how you had no problem mounting Kh-25s when I have never seen a single pic of them on a copter.

I certainly didn't.

 

Since your obviously not going to even think about things, would your company please tell us which files we need to mod to bring this in. I am definitely tired of being shot down by cheating air AI, and my only chance against them is Igla's or R-73s.

It isn't my company, and I'm not convinced the mechanism even exists in game to make AAMs operational..

 

@Speed - Thanks for the nice, reasonable post. As for where to mount, I see no reason Iglas couldn't be mounted on the inner ports. R-73's might have to be mounted on the outer, because of their exhaust. Kind of like Kh-25s. Not really sure how exhaust would effect the engines. However, Iglas look like they have no more exhaust than any unguided rocket.

Negatively - Russian helis strafe with rockets, they are not to launch them from a hover. A couple Mi-28's crashed because of it.

[mvsgas]

Rocket or missile exhaust can stall/choke/overheat or cause a burn through on jet engines (any type)

[Henchman14]

Yeah, I can see that. I've never had any problems with the rockets in hover on BS though. But the copter itself is pretty heavy. Moving definitely helps with the lift. I don't think igla's on the inner pylons would cause any more problems than an S-8.

[Heli Shed]

You know GG, I don't even bother reading your stuff anymore. Your company is really hard headed and this is what pisses people off. Ever heard the saying "The customer is always right"? Funny how you had no problem mounting Kh-25s when I have never seen a single pic of them on a copter. Since your obviously not going to even think about things, would your company please tell us which files we need to mod to bring this in? I am definitely tired of being shot down by cheating air AI, and my only chance against them is Igla's or R-73s.

 

you need :helpsmilie:

[Henchman14]

Lol, you need a life, troll. Oh, and so YOU guys understand, all you little trolls made my ignore list. So **** off.

Edited February 28, 2011 by Henchman14

[159th_Viper]

Lol, you need a life, troll.

 

 

And that's constructive how?

 

 

Be that as it may, your question has been asked and answered. You not electing to listen for reasons unbeknownst to all but yourself is clearly not taking the matter any further.