Major Problem with A-10 Helo-hunt Missions

[D-Scythe]

Okay, it's a given that in any type of A-10 mission, there is a high chance that the player will come face-to-face with a group of Su-25Ts or Ka-50s that are none too happy with us beating the crap out of their tanks. So....they fire Vikhr-Ms at us. At first, this doesn't seem to be very significant, but it is a huge bug - and realism killer too. Here are my reasons why:

 

I) Seeing Su-25Ts fire Vikhrs at you while they have R-73s is not realistic.

 

II) Vikhrs do not have the flight model of air-to-air missiles, but rather simplified FM for A/G missiles like Maverick and HARM. Unfortunately, this also means that it does NOT lose speed anywhere near as fast as it should, making it lethal to the A-10 when fired anywhere from the rear. Hell, the F-15 has trouble outrunning it.

 

III) Tracking is perfect. Once fired at you from behind, unless you can outrun it - an impossibility in the A-10 - you are toast.

 

In fact, the only times I successfully dodged Vikhr-Ms is from head-on - which the Vikhr is horrible at against fixed wing. But from behind - again, if you can't defeat it kinematically, you are toast.

 

Worthy to note, although this is not a jab to the East-West crap fest thing, is that the Hellfire is basically gutted in the game with no A/A ability at all - even though it should against other helicopters (tested by U.S. Army in the early 90s, so it's not like it's new). Hell, the TOW missile was used to bring down a few Hinds in the Iran-Iraq war :P

[SUBS17]

I've hit air targets with both vihkr and mavericks. You might have a better chance avoiding the vihkr by climbing above the level of the attacking aircraft since its using optics to track you. Also water should also throw it off. You're right about the Ka50s being deadly A/A, in an online game I saw an AI KA50 nail several players, they can be a handful lol.

[Cobra360]

Try to put the Vikhrs in your 3 or 9 o clock and keep turing to keep it there. The seeker should not be able to keep track and should miss.

There is no counter measures against a laser track except smoke and I'm not sure if that is modeled in the game or how you are supposed to put smoke between yourself and the missile.

 

I see the need for a trackfile file here demonstrating the ability to dodge the Vikhr.

[SUBS17]

CNTRL R dumps fuel, but the vapour wouldn't be enough so I doubt it would work since its ai launched.

[GGTharos]

It doesn't matter what CM's you use - the Vikhr doesn't track laser paint - ie a laser spot painted on your plane (or any target) ... it's a beam-rider. The seeker's in the *rear*. For this reason alone it shoudl be horrible at hitting anything at fast moving as an aircraft from the 3-9.

[Cobra360]

Appears to be effective against aircraft alright, provided you have the right versoin of the missile.

 

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/at-16.htm

[D-Scythe]

Guys, I know how to dodge missiles, okay? It's not like I'm so newb here. I know the basics, like beaming, etc. But when the helicopter fires a Vikhr-M at you from less than a mile away after you fly by (since helos can hover-turn, ergo getting their nose around faster than aircraft) there is no time to put the missile on the beam. Vikhr's don't lose speed like A/A missiles do - it's FM is simplified and it conserves its speed (which is supersonic) very well. So unless you are already at 900kmph - not possible with the A-10 - you are forced to drop everything and place the Ka-50 as your highest priority (which is ridiculous btw - jet aircraft at speed shouldn't have to worry about helos from behind).

 

This thing is more effective than Archers - R-73s are pretty good too, but at least they can be spoofed with flares.

 

And whoever said that Vikhr's were effective against fast-movers needs to get their sources re-checked. ATGMs like Hellfire, Vikhr and TOW are only applicable on helicopters, and only effective when the target isn't aware of the threat. In the 1980s-1990s, the sensors on helicopters weren't designed to track air targets, simply because nobody ever thought about it before.

 

And for the record, I have never seen the AI fire Mavericks at me.

[Roman G]

This thing is more effective than Archers - R-73s are pretty good too, but at least they can be spoofed with flares.

 

I am not an missile expert - but it seems logical to me that as far as you are not moving very fast (which you are not since you are in A-10) and you are within about 3 miles then Vikhr should have better kill probablility than R-73. As you said R-73 are pretty easily fooled with flares - the Vikhr does not have this problem - the "intelligence" of target tracking is not in the Vikhr missile but in the laser-beam-sourcing aircraft - which should have much more "brain" pover than any missile.

 

Also - in LOMAC the Vikhr's engine burns for about 3 miles - if this is correct then Vikhr shouldn't have problem with loosing energy for this distance.

 

When I fly Su25t then I rather fire Vikhr at helicopters than r-73. It just works better. Again - I don't know how realistic it is but it doesn't seem to me that far off from reality ...

[D-Scythe]

You're missing the point - the Vikhr is designed to kill tanks, not A-10s. Tanks are basically stationary - less than 30 kmph in combat situations - while now we have something moving almost 10 times as fast. It simply just shouldn't be able to *track* something with such unerring accuracy.

 

Moreover, it doesn't lose speed like it should. The FM is just off, and doesn't take into account the increased drag, etc. when the missile is chasing after a manuevering target pulling 5 Gs at 450 kmph.

 

Can't you see? When used as an A/A missile in such conditions, the Vikhr outperforms the Aphid and the Archer kinematically, manueverability and probability of kill-wise. It's a 100%, and I don't care what anybody says, no weapon is ever 100%. Nothing is.

 

It baffles me to even consider that people actually think a anti-tank missile, which places more importance on the destructive capability of the warhead rather than aerodynamic design, can even approach the PK of a high-performance, SRAAM like the Archer in ANY condition. But I guess apparently there are.

[Roman G]

You're missing the point - the Vikhr is designed to kill tanks, not A-10s.

 

If you look at this link:

 

http://www.rusarm.ru/p_prod/airfor/ka50.htm#

 

there are these paragraphs there:

 

"The combined warhead of the VIKHR Missile is fitted with different fuses. High accuracy jam-proof guidance system ensures effective engagement of different ground targets (with 900mm Explosive Reactive Armour) as well as the airborne targets flying at a speed of up to 800 km/h. The pilot selects required fuse in flight.

The VIKHR guided missiles also are efficiently used to kill air targets, such as helicopters and strike aircraft, thus rendering air cover to friendly troops over the battlefield."

 

So it seems that Vikhr is indeed designed to kill low-airspeed targets as well. Regarding the 100% kill ratio - I agree with you that it should be lower - I think the targeting system should lose some precision with increased distance to the target.

[D-Scythe]

Again, not the point. The issue is not whether the Vikhr missile can hit an A/A target - even unguided bullets can in that regard - it's the fact that the Vikhr is superior to the R-73/AIM-9 in some respects, which is just not realistic, no matter how you look at it.

[Roman G]

Again, not the point.

 

Well, unless I can't read - you clearly stated in your previous post that that was the point (or at least one of them).

 

The issue is not whether the Vikhr missile can hit an A/A target - even unguided bullets can in that regard

 

You are twisting facts too far - aren't you ? If the link I sent you previously is not hoax then Vikhr is DESIGNED to kill also airborne targets with speed up to 800 km/h - and I presume by not randomly hitting them by pure luck.

 

it's the fact that the Vikhr is superior to the R-73/AIM-9 in some respects, which is just not realistic, no matter how you look at it.

 

Well, in respect to not being fooled by a flare the Vikhr & Skhval are superior. In other respects - such as you can fire and forget R-73 or that you don't have to specify things like target size and manually mark the target - then R-73 is superior.

[ZoomBoy27]

Again, not the point. The issue is not whether the Vikhr missile can hit an A/A target - even unguided bullets can in that regard - it's the fact that the Vikhr is superior to the R-73/AIM-9 in some respects, which is just not realistic, no matter how you look at it.

What specific aspects are superior?

Why would a visually tracked missile be inferior to a A2A missile from can be spoofed with chaff and flares? I don't see the Vikhr as any different than a guided TOW missile.

The launching platform is stationary from a helo which is superior for very short shots(which are what we are talking about) than any plane that's not at the correct angle of attack at less than 1 km.

 

The no loss of energy in the FM does sound like a serious question - place it into the Bugs forum so that they can investigate it.

[GGTharos]

Missile FM is an issue throughout LOMAC. Let's leave that at that, and let's say that ED is looking into it, but as usual, no promises.

 

Now, as for the Vikhr being 'designed' to be used on Aerial targets, don't expect it to be very successful aaginst anything but an unaware target. It's short propulsion and guidance method as well as lack of prox fuze leave a few things to be desired as an AA weapon. It wouldn't be very effective against a fast fighter.

[D-Scythe]

Thank you GG. And Roman, Zoomboy, you guys seem to think the laser designator on the Su-25T as perfect for some strange reason. Okay, it probably can track vehicle/buildings, with near perfection, but against a fixed wing mover? Unless the thing is unaware and travelling straight and level, that's going to create some problems right off the bat. Add to the fact that the Vikhr's range (much less than R-73, and much slower) and agility is no where close to the Archer, and you do the math.

 

Why would a visually tracked missile be inferior to a A2A missile from can be spoofed with chaff and flares? I

 

First of all, the Vikhr tracks laser, not visual. Secondly, the actual visual sensor that cues the laser designator that guides the Vikhr would find itself in a whole other league when trying to keep a stable lock on a twisting, manuevering target at 500+ kmph as opposed to zero. Thirdly, if you think a visual guided missile is superior to IR or radar ones, well, talk to GG about it and ask what he thinks of that. And what Raytheon, Vympel, Bae and other AAM producers think of that, since they haven't even proposed a visually guided missile to their customers for the past 3 decades.

 

If the link I sent you previously is not hoax then Vikhr is DESIGNED to kill also airborne targets with speed up to 800 km/h...Well, in respect to not being fooled by a flare the Vikhr & Skhval are superior. In other respects - such as you can fire and forget R-73 or that you don't have to specify things like target size and manually mark the target - then R-73 is superior.

 

Designed to hit things at 800 kmph? Yeah, maybe if it was flying straight and level. And FYI, FAS is not the best source around. Roman, think about what you are saying: a missile that is designed to kill tanks can, and should, perform better (in some respects, as you put it) than a missile with TVC, designed for the sole purpose of killing aircraft, in a dogfight?

 

If you think that, fine. I can't change your opinion, even if I present you with all the facts in the world.

 

You know, you can just try it yourselves. Hop into an A-10 or Su-25 and fly against a flight of Ka-52s armed with Vikhrs and then try again but this time arm them with R-73s.

[Roman G]

Designed to hit things at 800 kmph? Yeah, maybe if it was flying straight and level.

 

Well that would be my guess too - 800 km/h is upper limit and the target probably have to fly very level - and even then the kill probability is probably not too great.

 

And FYI, FAS is not the best source around.

 

I know nothing about FAS so you might be right. Plus it's is their nation's technology - so they might be little biased too ...

 

FYI, the LOMAC 1.1 manual is giving the same information about Vikhr - as capable of killing airborne targets flying at speeds up to 800 km/h ...

 

Roman, think about what you are saying: a missile that is designed to kill tanks can, and should, perform better (in some respects, as you put it) than a missile with TVC, designed for the sole purpose of killing aircraft, in a dogfight?

 

In respect of resistance to countermeasures like flares and chaff - yes - the Vikhr should do better because it is guided by aircraft with more "brain" than any missile. An aircraft can carry a couple of times more Vikhr missiles than R-73s. In I think all other respects (range, maneuvering target, high target speed, high angle of attack launch, fire-and-forget, time to aim and fire, etc) - no - the R-73 should do better than Vikhr.

 

Do you by any chance have track of maneuvering A-10 and Vikhr missile still hitting it ? I haven't tried it but when I am attacking row of moving tanks in LOCKON and about 5 seconds before Vikhr is supposed to hit one tank I move target designator to the tank next to him - then in about 50% cases Vikhr will miss. Since moving the target designator is about equivalent of maneuvering aircraft - I would guess that the probability of Vikhr hitting maneuvering A-10 in LOCKON should be even less - maybe 20-30%. So if it is 100% in your case then something does seem wrong.

[ZoomBoy27]

Thank you GG. And Roman, Zoomboy, you guys seem to think the laser designator on the Su-25T as perfect for some strange reason. Okay, it probably can track vehicle/buildings, with near perfection, but against a fixed wing mover? Unless the thing is unaware and travelling straight and level, that's going to create some problems right off the bat. Add to the fact that the Vikhr's range (much less than R-73, and much slower) and agility is no where close to the Archer, and you do the math.

 

First of all, the Vikhr tracks laser, not visual. Secondly, the actual visual sensor that cues the laser designator that guides the Vikhr would find itself in a whole other league when trying to keep a stable lock on a twisting, manuevering target at 500+ kmph as opposed to zero. Thirdly, if you think a visual guided missile is superior to IR or radar ones, well, talk to GG about it and ask what he thinks of that. And what Raytheon, Vympel, Bae and other AAM producers think of that, since they haven't even proposed a visually guided missile to their customers for the past 3 decades.

 

 

 

Designed to hit things at 800 kmph? Yeah, maybe if it was flying straight and level. And FYI, FAS is not the best source around. Roman, think about what you are saying: a missile that is designed to kill tanks can, and should, perform better (in some respects, as you put it) than a missile with TVC, designed for the sole purpose of killing aircraft, in a dogfight?

 

If you think that, fine. I can't change your opinion, even if I present you with all the facts in the world.

 

Who ever said you couldn't change my opinion? Or I've ever claimed perfection? But I do have to bring up the context in which the Vikhr missiles shots are made. In narrow circumstances it can be effective especially against A-10s and Su-25Ts

1stly the targeted A-10s and Su-25Ts are never going 800 kmh and it is incorrect to weigh effectiveness on relative speeds that are completely out of range for normal operations.

2ndly the Twisting and turning that A-10s and Su-25Ts is practically non-existant. At one point or another coming out of the 5G turn has to happen for these planes and at a low speed. And a helicopter can rotate at a rate that makes any A-10 and Su-25T at the exit point a fat and juicy target - travelling flat and straight and level for the most part as you stated. Anything other than a 3 or 9 o'clock exit point and the A-10s and Su-25Ts are good targets.

3rdly A-10s and Su-25Ts are not fast movers and are more like helicopters than Su-27s especially against a high-speed Vikhr. Don't over-estimate the speed value of a plane merely because it has wings. The targeted A-10s and Su-25Ts are built tough because speed is not their defence.

 

I assume that the reason there are missiles with Radar and IR seekers is due to the BVR capabilitites of the radar and the ability to discern high differential of signal for the IR seekers. In the narrow circumstances of a very close range strike(which we are talking about), the visual is now useful - see the Helmet mounted sight the Russians have and the Americans will have. And at a very close range, range limitations are unimportant. So I ask.

 

I ask the questions because I want them answered not for only "perfect" conditions but for all conditions. A developer will try to answer my questions and we'll have a better sim.

[D-Scythe]

In all fairness, I wasn't referring to you in the latter half of my previous post ;) Anyway, to the topic at hand, I have two issues, questions if you will, regarding two points you've made - one, what is this "visual" guided missile you are referring too? The Vikhr is laser guided - what I was trying to say, is that any current FLIR/EO sensor is going to have problems keeping a tiny, designating laser beam painted onto an evading jet fighter. Think about it - if the laser loses the target, for even a brief second, the firing solution becomes "infinity" because the laser will shoot past the target, ergo trashing the shot.

 

Secondly, an evading fighter will *always* outrun a helicopter, AND the target doesn't have to pull 5-6 Gs all the time. One, such an exhausting turn can be left to the last moment after the missile is launched, and two, keep in mind, the helicopter will also be losing speed during turns.

 

So in a tail chase scenario, this is what I think should happen, even if an A-10 is caught with its pants down. The Ka-50 acquires, and fires a Vikhr. The A-10 tries to extend, by diving, whatever, and performs a max G break to evade the missile (simple affair, as it isn't an R-60/73), at which point the A-10 should have already extended at least 2-4 miles away.

 

In any case, in LOMAC, a 5-6 G won't keep you safe, and even if you evade the first shot, the second will gut you from 4 miles out anyway, because the FM is wrong and spoofability zero.

 

LOMAC's Vikhr is just not realistic. IMO, of course. You can keep yours, or change it, if you like :)

[Roman G]

... what is this "visual" guided missile you are referring too?

 

I guess this one is for ZoomBoy to answer, but my understanding is that visual means that aircraft is visually tracking target and it is guiding the missile to it using the laser beam.

 

The Vikhr is laser guided - what I was trying to say, is that any current FLIR/EO sensor is going to have problems keeping a tiny, designating laser beam painted onto an evading jet fighter. Think about it - if the laser loses the target, for even a brief second, the firing solution becomes "infinity" because the laser will shoot past the target, ergo trashing the shot.

 

Actually I don't think the laser is pointing at the target at any time except for stationary targets or in the last millisecond when the missile is supposed to make the hit. The Vikhr is BEAM RIDING MISSILE - it is NOT guided into the point illuminated by the laser. I think the laser is pointing in front of the moving target most of the time simply because that is where the missile is supposed to fly.

 

I thought you said you understand the basics - like beaming - plus GGharos already said in this thread that Vikhr is beam rider and the missile sensors are not in missile head but in it's tail.

[GGTharos]

The shkval can be spoofed, like any sensor out there - but it's a ltitle harder to accomplish. Rather, you're more likely to gimbal it out - the issue here is specifically that you have a beam-rider designed primarily to kill tanks being employed against a maneuvering jet - this shouldn't work at all.

 

Just because they tell you it's designed to be 'effective against enemy strike fighters at up to 800kph) doesn't mean at all that it's 'effective against an evasive fighter'.

 

This is true even of acual anti-aircraft missiles. Take the SA-2. Great against high-sltitude bomebrs. Not so great against fighters. The only time a 2 could catch a fighter was when teh pilot was busy mooning the world.

 

More modern missiles perform better, naturally, but they're also not single-axis control rolling airframe beam-riders (although rolling airframe missiles have been employed before - in the shoulder-fired variety) ;)

[Roman G]

... Vikhr's guidance method as well as lack of prox fuze leave a few things to be desired as an AA weapon ...

 

Actually this document:

 

http://www.leavenworth.army.mil/milrev/download/English/JanFeb03/grau.pdf

 

mentions that Vikhr HAS proximity fuse.

 

And this source:

 

http://www.rusarm.ru/p_prod/airfor/ka50.htm#

 

say that "pilot can choose the type of fuse in flight" ...

 

I agree that Vikhr should have big problem hitting maneuvering targets even under 800 km/h - mainly because it's 1-dimensional quidance control system. But we are discussing A-10 here - which hardly is a "fast fighter"

 

... Rather, you're more likely to gimbal it out ...

 

I don't see Skhval gimbal limits as problem here - if the target is about 2-3 km away from Skhval - then even if it is flying at Mach 1 at 3 clock position relative to missile - it's angular speed is then about 15 degrees per second - even Su-25 should be able to turn it's nose that fast, and Ka-50 should not have any problem with 15 degrees per sec at all ...

[GGTharos]

The A-10 is not fast, but it is a hard-turning fighter. I can't see it doing hard turns with a full combat laod of course, but recently it was demonstrated that A-10's head out with just the necessities, which isn't much - typically a pair of mavericks and 2-4 bombs.

 

You're right about the fuze, but I have some doubts - it's an AP weapon and its fairly small, which to me implies some limitations for the warhead - but it's certainly not impossible to make a fairly effective dual-purpose warhead.

 

You're right about the Shkval not gimalling out but, I have my doubts about this missile being really able to kinematically threaten a target even such as the A-10 when it's beaming 2-3km away. A hard yank out of plane and counter-rotation should unsettle it, I think. I'm assumign that track will be maintained by the Shkval, but att he same time, I don't think the missile itself is able to cope with an evasive A-10.

 

Helicopters are a little different, especially when not moving at speed. Keep in mind that as a beam rider, this missile follows anything but an optimal anti-aircraft path. Specifically, it does pure pursuit which makes it prone to an overshoot from a well-timed break.

 

 

But also keep in mind that I always keep referring to an aware and evading fighter.

[Roman G]

You're right about the Shkval not gimalling out but, I have my doubts about this missile being really able to kinematically threaten a target even such as the A-10 when it's beaming 2-3km away.

 

Yes, the missile guidance seems to have much bigger problem with target changing course than the Skhval does - plus it is much closer to target so target's angular speed relative to missile is much higher than target's angular speed relative to Skhval ...

 

A hard yank out of plane and counter-rotation should unsettle it, I think. I'm assumign that track will be maintained by the Shkval, but att he same time, I don't think the missile itself is able to cope with an evasive A-10.

 

Yes, if A-10 makes hard turn in the right direction (to inflict maximum angular change for the missile) in a right moment ( I guess about 5 seconds before the supposed hit - not sure about this though) then in my opinion the Vikhr should not be able to keep up ...

 

... Specifically, it does pure pursuit which makes it prone to an overshoot from a well-timed break.

 

Well - I would have to check my dictionary about what is "pure pursuit" and "well-timed break" in order to be able to answer this ... so maybe next time ... ;)

[Iron Legionnaire]

Pure pursuit is when you or your missile is pointed straight towards an aircraft. Lead pursuit is when you or your missile fly ahead of an aircraft to an intercept point. Unless you are directly ahead or behind a target, lead pursuit is what many (most? all?) AA missiles fly because it conserves energy more efficiently and ensures a shorter flight time to the target.

 

A "break" is just a quick, violent bank, usually into the path of the missile. Missile can't turn hard enough to keep with you, and misses(or such is the hope).

[D-Scythe]

Actually I don't think the laser is pointing at the target at any time except for stationary targets or in the last millisecond when the missile is supposed to make the hit. The Vikhr is BEAM RIDING MISSILE - it is NOT guided into the point illuminated by the laser. I think the laser is pointing in front of the moving target most of the time simply because that is where the missile is supposed to fly.

 

I thought you said you understand the basics - like beaming - plus GGharos already said in this thread that Vikhr is beam rider and the missile sensors are not in missile head but in it's tail.

 

Dude, just think about what you said. Just right now. Beam riding missile? The only 'beams' the -25T has is the LASER. So it rides the laser beam. Are you with me? This leads to my next point...to ride a laser beam, the laser must be 'lased', or painting a target. This is 'basic' for any laser guided weapon. I know this is the Vikhr, but it still must recieve range data so the size of it can adjust the size of its spirals, which get smaller and smaller as it approaches the target. Therefore the laser must be painted on the target.

 

This then leads to my third point...because the laser must be painted on the target, it can't be "lead" or pointed in front of the target, because then range information would be denied. In front of the target is *air*, therefore it can't reflect off of anything to give it a range. I told you repeatedly that A/A combat presents a different type of scenario on non-helicopter targets. Maybe if the Skhval/Vikhr was advanced enough - I don't really know - I suppose theoretically the missile can compensate for riding the beam of the laser for a while without any range information, but I doubt it.

 

Now, then, you can say that, "well, this is analogous to an HOJ shot, when range information is denied. So it can still hit its target." Not exactly; the Vikhr spirals, remember? If you seen how its FM is implemented in the game, the closer it gets to the target, the smaller its spirals get...but without range information, how would it know its getting closer to the target? What if it spirals out too soon or too early?