Optics of the Ka-52

I was talking about the MFD targeting design, The Ka-52 has GOES-451. The cockpit is updated to whatever was shown in IRL footage. That is what you’re talking about when you say GOES-451M. Its only MFD target optic display. There is no information of the MFD appearance for GOES-451M. So how do you know the difference? All picture and footage shown is from Ka-52s optics, Since there are more Ka-52s then their are Ka-52M (20 - 30 since the Modification doesn’t have any Unit summary details of units made / retrofit, Its only contracts and requirements).

This picture below is a Ka-52 MFD setup, So no its not GOES-451M. One more thing to mention, when the Ka-52 came out in WT the Ka-52M never existed since word of the vehicle started in 2018 while the Ka-52 was added Early 2020. There is no information on the GOES-451M Back then and there is no applicable information now. All that we know is that its better and it can fire the new LMUR 15km ATGM. Gaijin wouldn’t know where to start when it comes down to GOES-451M and who knows, Maybe GOES-451 and GOES-451M are the same in MFS targeting configuration. You simple have no tell tale sign to know.


GOES-451M isn’t modeled on the Ka-52 since in this picture on the left is GOES-451 and on the right is GOES-451M

Here’s another example

Lastly: your second question “Do you feel that for example Hellfire is in same playing field as Vikhr ? Hellfire is flying well below its publicly known parameters, while Vikhr is very optimistically modeled and does not eeven have its rocket motor simulated.”

Answer: There are many variants of Hellfire-K missiles ranges at 11km range, however that doesn’t factor in drag from its top attack targeting system. 11km effective range is how far can the missile possibly go. Lofting low altitude missiles loses more energy then missiles flying straight since there is a lot of drag at low altitude, Lofting only works at higher altitudes. The Vihkr Missile flies straight giving it its proper range.

The Vihkr’s Rocket Motors are modeled correctly. The 2 on the sides produce fire, the back of
the missile is a sustainer (produces no fire). Videos depicting fire in the back are ATAKAS

Even DCS modeled it correctly

Screenshot (3821)

As for the competition between Hellfires vs Vikhrs. Do understand that the Vikhrs got nerfed multiple times, both in Penetration values and Shrapnel. Vikhrs irl still states to penetrate 1,000mm of armor (Behind ERA) now it got nerfed to 800mm pen plus reduces shrapnel.

What makes the Vikhr still perform well is its speed and multi purpose capabilities. This isn’t “optimistic” this is true to real life. As for war thunder, You have Fire and forget missiles with the Hellfires, something I with the Vikhrs could do so killing multiple targets would be quicker.

That being said both missiles are good, however there is a problem with fire and forget hellfire’s. Aiming is a thing, so the reason why its hard for some people to kill with hell fires is because WT rewards aiming. I do not fire center of mass with vikhrs because it produces the same unreliable results as the Hellfire. So I aim specifically and I one shot almost everything. So do keep that in mind, skill matters still. Compare the IRL footage of both missiles hitting into targets. They both look like they should annihilate stuff in game. But there is damage simulation.

1 Like

Correction: What I was saying is that, the MFD systems and Targeting optics could look exactly the same and we wouldn’t know. That being said, we have no tell tale signs of knowing how a GOES-451M Targeting system looks. They are potentially 20 - 30 Ka-52Ms in service vs the 140 - 160 Ka-52 / Ka-52K systems.

The odds that Gaijin wanted to skip the GOES-451 is not there since the Ka-52 was completely modeled in 2020. There are no real changes ever done to the Optics of the Helicopter, other then copy the MFD display of the Targeting systems from the ones IRL.

Well you got i all wrong. Image quality is not determined by the MFD it is determined by the TV/Thermal sensor feeding MFD with visual image, and that it in case of Ka-52 is GOES-451.
And to be clear GOES-451 was designed in 90. and in that time, nobody had 3 gen thermal imager which is currently fitted to Ka-52 in game. Therefore any concerns about overperforming Ka-52 optics/TIS is valid.

Range is not an issue.

I was not talking about visualization side facing thrusters.
I was talking about that the rocket is burning whole time of the flight (20+ sec) in Warthunder giving Vikhr constant speed no matter what and constant maneuverability during whole flight.
In DCS as you pointed out engine is modeled correctly burning about 6s, after that missile slows down and looses maneuverability.

Penetration is mostly irrelevant.

Oh really? So Irl they managed to down Tu-16 flying low speed (with gear down) at range about 3600m yet in WT can take on fast moving maneuvering targets. And lest not start analyzing vids from recent combat deployment.
Hellfire Is not Fire and Forget.

You obviously know nothing about Hellfires, and iaw your profile you never fired one in battle. You claim Hellfire is F&F which is absolutely false. How can be your opinion relevant ?

BTW Here is the topic describing how badly Hellfires are implemented:


I don’t think you understand what I was saying, But that ok. I’ll explain it more clearly.
When you look at footage through an MFD its 800x600 Resolution. When you show it on TV or on pc it gets upscaled to 1920x1080. Display upscaling is what I was talking about. The Sensors are working completely fine, however Do you honestly believe that the DOD of a country at war would want to show how good the thermal resolution is? Explain the sensors of an apache then, since both video appears to be garbage quality.

Uh yes it is, U.S military tests the maximum capability a weaponry can travel. They don’t factor in curves, U.S military industrial companies has had a reputation for overstating weapon capability, specifically range.

And Again DCS also has the same thing simulated, for a game that’s more accurate.

The 11km stated for the missile on the wiki doesn’t have proper sources. Also all I found was that the 11km range is based off of conditions of firing, Its extremely unlikly for a Hellfire to hit that range, the average firing is always 8km, look it up its pretty easy to know the Hellfire II range. It can range from 7.1km to 11km, however guaranteed hits are 8km, So Gaijin once again got it right.

Well now that you specified as to what is the problem I see. however if you’ve play tested your Ka-50 (with 0 battles btw) You would understand that the fire doesn’t turn off but the missile gets almost uncontrollable, Its just a visual error. The missile struggles immensely like a SACLOS missile does once you move your mouse at long range.

Still a nerf. Gaijins own formula nerfed a missile which most sources says can pen 1 meter of armor. I’m not complaining about it. Gaijins Formulas does show that sources can over exaggerate elements that could be incorrect.

For F&F, Whoops Forgot that feature was removed.

Also the vikhr is relatively light weight compared to the Thrust it produces.
It goes 600m/s and its 2 boosters helps the fins on guidance. Yes the test is against a big target, however the Vikhr is accurate at riding the laser beam so I it can easily hit a smaller target with the proxy that thing has. One more thing, I do have to also profess this one point. War Thunders ATGM beam riding system is artificially boosted. For all missiles, Every missile should act like the SACLOS systems, where they spin around all the time. However, many people across many nations will be upset, since you have to aim at specific parts of a vehicle to one shot it.

FYI, I find it funny how you don’t want to analyze vids that are more up to date.

Screenshot (3847)

If this is your sorry excuse for knowing how both sides of Helicopters work, I’d be a professional since I spent 1 day test driving Apaches and seeing how their missiles perform.

Seriously, If you’re going to bring up stats you better be actually packing something good. Because looking at your Profile shows that your a German / American main. I am a Russian Main, but you don’t see me using this as an excuse. This is probably the reason why you didn’t know that the Vihkr missile flame is a visual error and that the missile gets worse in turning at range.

Overall, my arguments were based off of research. All of the publicly available sources agrees with what I’ve so far said. And for god sake please show some form of proper breakdowns, you make small simplistic statements that leaves out context as to what you’re even trying to say. Its ironic how you would supposedly know better, yet not explain well at all / Deflect.

“Yesterday I have fired a quite a few Hellfires missiles andI was quite suprised how they performed”

Looking at that phrasing, I can easily say he’s has no clue.

“They are unreasonably slow”

Screenshot (3848)

Screenshot (3849)

Fun fact, The TX-657 Never gotten upgraded on the hellfire so all the missiles perform the same. I guess the Hellfires in game over performing. ¯_(ツ)_/¯

I love how you’re using another Forum to argue for you.
I’ve already said enough as to why things are the way they are.

Not gonna continue speaking to someone who can’t make
a proper academic breakdown, Simply a difference in skill.

Anyways I’m off, go figure out the rest.

1 Like

O WAIT ITS YOU, Lol. Yea your sources is is literally a video.

“TADS range is redacted from vid but range of 5500 and even TOF 16 (Time of Flight) is mentioned over the radio.”” That isn’t reliable at all, we really wouldn’t know unless the Redacted parts were unveiled.

You also cannot argue that any Hellfire variants having more range, when the missiles have 0 mention of Fuel increase and a change of rocket motor. I’d thought you would know more about this then me.

No proper research done, Vague video information, just to drive home a point relating to a propaganda narrative. Even though English sources supports the same thing.

Looking back at this, arguing with you was just a waste of time, this is a joke.

So video is upscaled when played on PC or else. You stil play video in native resolution on 4k display etc.

This is probably very close to what Ka-52 pilot can see on MFD:

Note that the diplay symbology is quite sharp so there is not much lost to the video compression. This video is interesting for many reasons:

  • Ka-52 is unable to keep aiming point at the target automatically
  • it takes 25s to reach the target (in WT wikh do 22s to 10km range)
  • motor is burning for 8s
  • supports the RUMIT that the Ka-52 is unable to ID tagets past 6km.
  • missile is flying quite off bore most of the flight unlike in WT

From whom would they like to hide it ? It is not really secret.

a) the thermal camera is wester so only thing western inteligence needed to do, was to ask Thales: What did you sell to Russians?

b) there were at least two capured Ka-52 shipped to US past year…

Depends on the Apache, there are several versions of the TADS/PVNS fielded on Apache helicopter, early TADS/PVNS (1975) is whole different story to nowadays TADS/PVNS.

Oh really ? Does the STANAG ring a bell ? There are standardized test procedures to determine weapon capability across the NATO countries, there is nothing like manufacture declares something which cannot be tested and proven iaw STANAG.

Nobody declared that the Hellfire B/K should have 11km range. Hellfire B/K can hit the targets past 8km but 8km range means that hellfire would reach certain hit probalility at this range.

And as I said range is not an issue in WT. So pleas dont try to sway discussion to other dierction.

Missile has constant speed of 400m/s in WT and is has same controllability during the whole flight. If it feels less responsive at long ranges it is because slight angular difference means big vertical or horizontal differences at range.

The F&F Hellfire L was never in game.

Watch the video i have postet do you feel that the Vikhr follows the guidance beam to the letter and you can target specific part of the vehicle ?

They are. Not many non russian beam rider in game, only Starstreak and ADASTS?

No, missile flight control type (rotating with one axis control surfaces like with Vikhr or Starstreak)is not tied to the guidance method (SALCOS, Beam rider, etc). ADATS is beamrider in second phase of flight and it is not rotating.

It would benefit WT greatly if the missiles had realistic accuracy. ANTI-CAS crowd would surely love it.

I don’t play GRB. Check the tab on the right.

What research ? You are not even aware that the missile does not slow down (hence it is not only visual issue) in game. Same speed same effect of control surfaces.

Well if you read whole thing not just a first post you would find out that the publicly advertised max speed of 475m/s is never reached in game and Ingame Hellfire reaches barely 410m/s.

You would also learn that mayor issue is the Hellfire missile trajectory which is exact opposite to the real trajectory:

Fun fact, you are wrong again.

Hellfire L, or R has different motor, therefore the missiles are 17cm longer.

As mentioned above versions of Hellfire has bigger motors, second it is about selected firing trajectory, flatter (like LOAL-DIR) would means shorter path to target therefore less flight time.

I see you have nothing close to any sort of evidence either Hellfire or Vikhr…

Fun fact here is what can happen if you tweak hellfire autopilot a bit, no need for better engine:

But again range or TOF would not be an issue in WT if the missile would follow corresponding trajectory (LOAL-HI) in game.

1 Like

You’re speaking gibberish, so let me scale the image for you.


Better detail.

There are videos of Ka-52 locking onto targets, its up to the Co-Pilot.


Just because a vehicle can potentially be compromised, doesn’t mean following disclosure protocol should be invalid, its good practice. Captured Vehicle or not.

Side note: French 2nd Generation Thermals are really good, Its funny how you’d argue thermal quality being bad.

Either way you were wrong about GOES-451M being on the Ka-52, you’re also wrong about why the thermal quality gets worse on the Ka-52. Some of the footage being bad is caused by the Vibration of the vehicle affecting the optics quality. However they’re many examples of vibrations not affecting the Ka-52 so thermal quality will remain all over the place. (This isn’t conclusive towards why thermal quality in game should be bad)

A missile has a new motor because its longer… Please for the love of god SHOW ME THE SOURCE.
You’re talking out of your ass right now. I’ve checked all AGM-114 L / R sources, they all have the same range, So please show me what you’re talking about.

Screenshot (3854)
Screenshot (3853)

(Not like they’re in the game right now)

Please show the Source? There is no information on an upgraded motor. Only upgraded parts, Warhead / Firing systems.

I knew I wasn’t going crazy. AGM-114L was in the game when 1.91 came out, it had fire and forget capabilities but was removed since it was too easy to throw away all of your missiles then go reload afterwards.

There are multiple ranges biased off of trajectory. Gaijin chose the Trajectory that would give avoid the most amount of obstacles that are near a target. We used to have different trajectories but were removed.

Also the Advertised speed is 475m/s yet you’ve stated it doesn’t go that speed at all? Well of course because its actual speed is 444m/s also WT stat card still shows 475m/s for initial boost so you’re also wrong on 2 aspects. Its just the chosen trajectory for the missile.

This explains literally nothing. I’ll tell you why.

First off the AGM-114R-4 is a completely new missile that isn’t close to what we currently have.
Its being fired off of a MQ-9 Reaper, that operates at a higher altitude and is moving further boosting the range of the missile.

Screenshot (3856)

This statement is explaining the marketing of the new AGM-114R-4. There is no concrete information as to what actually changed on the missile. They’re ASSUMING that the rocket motor MIGHT have been changed.

They further go on to say that even if half of the 21 mile range is realized (10.5 Miles) Its is “a major capability leap that offers a big boost in flexibility for platforms employing it.”

LITERALLY, the only thing that artificially boosts the range of the Missile is the MQ-9 being at higher altitudes and firing while moving. This 4x the range is just marketing talk. They’re even trying to give it a more realistic range of 10.5 Miles. (16.8Km) The seeker self detonation timer could have been extended for all we know, and the motor has no changes since it was never explained what even changed. Most of these explanations are just speculation.

Yea just put the missile on an MQ-9 have it moving at very high altitude with an extended seeker timer.
Totally applicable to an Apache.

You talk about me not having evidence, yet you use Speculations as proof. Also ignoring vivid details as to what artificially makes a weapon better platform wise.

1 Like

What jou just upscaled i bit there is no more detail captured.

Sure go ahead and post a screen or video with target tracking engaged.

Correct it is to 8km range I was testing.

I ask you if you have spec of the GOES-451 so we can see what camera with what resolution it has and if it is equal to the game 1024*768, you provided nothing just claims this or that is wrong.
So please go ahead and post the GOES-451 and the GOES-451M parameters.

Really? And source ?

They chose trajectory which does not exist.

Well we can agree that the the missile is fastest when the engine stops burning from that point missile only de-accelerates. And in that point has speed 410m/s. Not sure what you mean with the rest.

Forget it, it is just a hint how the AP settings impact the missile performance, nothing more.

Anyhow awaiting the GOES specs and you can also pack the Vikhr rocket motor specs along.

Also if you can add some examples of Western manufacturer overestimating the effective range I’m all ears.


I fit it into a 800x600 window. That’s most likely what the pilots are seeing.
Of course the quality is better when the window is smaller.


Here you go. The target lock moves around like crazy. Then they switch to Manuel aim because its better to be as accurate as possible when trying to neutralize a target. Auto locking has its pros and cons. Even Apache pilot footage shows the same thing.

UH, what…

I was mainly arguing how do you know how the GOES-451M works. All I’ve been saying is that we don’t know.

^ Like if you knew what the GOES-451 was and how its from Thales, Id expect you to know the specific thermals.

Also the reason why I said 2nd generation is because The Russians imported tons of 2nd generation thermals for many of their modernized platforms / upgrades. I’d assume the GOES-451 would have it judging by the quality, however I never said I had the specs for it. I was asking you how you’d know any better.

Looking at the TADS/PVNS there seems to be only 2 versions of the sight. TADS/PVNS and a 2005 program for a potential 150% increase in performance called “Modernized-TADS/PNVS (M-TADS/PNVS) standard, also known as Arrowhead.”

They’re only 3 sources, 2 of which doesn’t work anymore. Either way its a 2005 upgrade with over 1,240 systems delivered. They’re many apaches retrofitted with these sensors past the year of 2005. the footage above is in 2008. Though we cannot tell which sight it is, one thing I can say is TADS/PVNS and M-TADS/PNVS is looking a whole lot similar to GOES-451 / GOES-451M minus the vibration problem the ka-52 gets here and there.

Unfortunately it was patched out really quick, so their isn’t any real footage.

You also know that the trajectory you’ve chosen to be added is a further nerf to the Hellfire.
I Looked at the climb of the missile and all I have to say is that the Trajectories you want the missile to have will have significantly more delay.

So Far I couldn’t find any footage of an apache firing at 8km max range, so If you can prove that the apache can follow these charts then you’d be right. Keep in mind Gaijin uses formulas to judge how well a missile. Even if the missile was going 475m/s all the time, There is no way a 475m/s missile doing a steep climb like that would reach a target at a faster time, It doesn’t add up, it would most likely have the same TOF as the first dotted line due to the fact that its slowing itself down.

Arcs aren’t faster then going straight to the target. Arcs are meant to extend the range.

I would have only agreed if the Missile was a straight flying one.

The rocket motor can produce the power for the missile to go 475m/s in a straights line, However the Hellfire curves and the trajectory (According to IRL data) can be changed. You cannot argue the Hellfire being 475m/s consistent when its all over the place. Again the advertisements are there for the missile to sell, They use the best case scenario data that can make the missile look better then it is. Like seriously, I would only wonder how they would be able to explain how does the multiple trajectories and turning curvature of the hellfire work along side its stated 475 m/s consistent speed.


Again you’re the one who assumed that the GOES-451 thermals is made by Thales (How would you know there are no specs). I never said I had the GOES-451 Specs, the only information available is that GOES-451M helps the Ka-52M use the new LMUR ATGM and that we haven’t seen GOES-451M MFD Optics, also speculated that “maybe the Optics for both versions are the same, we wouldn’t know”. That one is on you for miss reading what I’ve clearly stated.

The most information we know is that the motor is 2 stage, Using both front and back motors


All of the Air to Air Missiles, and its not even an American thing, many nations does this to in order to hide their true capabilities. What Gaijin does is takes dimension/booster/warhead date, then uses formulas to find the best median of the weapons performance (DCS does this too) . Now if you use the missiles weight and drag coefficients and combined that to the Boost timer of any of the missiles you’d realize that the true range of a missile could be anywhere between 40%-70% of a weapons advertised range.

This allows everyone to be confused as to what’s real and what isn’t, and also allows corporate manufacturers to sell better using this to their knowledge, if the range of a weapon is stated to have as high of a range as they can possibly get away with.

Example: Aim-120A,B,C amraam is stated to have a range of 105km (57mi)
If you do research on its boosters you’ll realize that the R-27er out performs its rocket motor.

DCS Community has already done extreme breakdowns of these missiles (Since they have Manuals on almost all of the missiles) Being more realistic can warthunder, Shows that WT is almost following DCS with the conclusion of missile stats.

Either way, I’d like to argue for a millennia longer. However I have things to do,
Lets agree to disagree.



Output image for goes-451 is 1024x768

Main improvements are second thermal channel (first is 8-12 mkm, second is 3-5 mkm), wider FOV for TV channel and increased range for it.

afaik goes-451 uses same thermal imager as ec tiger

This thread does not take into account the loss of resolution due to digital zoom. If use digital zoom to engage enemies at long range, it will lose resolution. This is the same for the Ka-52, AH-64, and all vehicles.

The CPG will move the FOV switch to the desired FOV position (W [14.3x], N [63.5x], or Z [127x]). The M position will select the wide field of view (WFOV). FOV gates will appear in W and N. The zoom field of view (ZFOV) is actually an electronic underscan of the center 50 percent of the NFOV; therefore, some resolution will be lost. The display processor (DP) processes the video, superimposes symbology in conjunction with the weapons processor (WP), and routes the video to the MPDs and optical relay tube (ORT) for display. The message DTV will appear in the upper left portion of the display to indicate that the DTV sensor has been selected.

Also, the trajectory of AGM-114 in the table is exaggerated for readability, the actual trajectory is similar to the game.


Looking at this trajectory, you might think that the AGM-114 is lofting quite steeply, but this is because the chart’s vertical axis is using “ft” and the horizontal axis is using “km”, which means that the trajectory is significantly exaggerated.


Actual trajectory is shown above, with the red trajectory being the exaggerated trajectory and the green trajectory being the actual trajectory.

The loss of resolution of seekers isn’t modeled in game though, is it? (let alone digital enhancement, or other processing techniques for non-aircraft sights).


Digital zoom is not implemented due to the above reasons.

Although the AH-64 currently uses 127x digital zoom, this is an error caused by insufficient data and will be fixed.

If this was considered in WT, only few vehicles in game would have usable (for current standart) optics.
Same goes for pretty much all fire control system, NVG, commander control, smoke launchers, external machine guns.

Theres many things modeled in game incorecctly (or not modeled at all) from IRL for the gameplay sake.
For example human’s wrongs and mistakes, loaders becoming tired, crew not having shocks from injuries and battle, all in game stabilizers overperforming, gunners being able to pin point guns where irl there would be matter caused by many things. Optics not being able to break, as well as inability to use alternative/back up optics. Autoloader failures which would be common for prototype vehicles like maybe Obj 906 and that german 4 sec reloading light tank on Marder chasee.

At least radiators were modeled this year, so yeah.

Do you happen to have the zoom values the AH-64 will have after this is fixed?


1 Like

With all the respect I haveto disagree. Problem maybe not be in the LOFT altitude but where the missile LOFTS.
I made this info graphic to clarify.
This is what I experience in game when whatching ingame replays:

An this is how the Hellfire should behave according to public sources:

Hope this helps.

1 Like

In the game, top attack is performed with a dive angle of 18-22°, which matches the diagram. 30-35° dive angle is too much.

Does not look like 18-22° to me.

This one feels like -5°

This one looks pretty steep.

This one looks steeper the what we have in game.

They also tested frag sleeve on K2 missile with impact angles 35° and 75°:

1 Like

Diagram has already been considered. This is the developer’s answer