Sundowner.pl

Hope you will do your end of the bargain: 1. "generation" rating is misleading and the 4.5, 4+, 4++, 4+++, 4.92837 is simply marketings talking. It's a multirole combat aircraft, that can perform many roles without switching equipment ? It's a 4th generation aircraft. It have also a passive low visibility ? Than it's 5th gen aircraft. No middle ground there. 2. F-16C/D Block 52+ in Polish variant (it is unique mind you) have very good avionics suite, the WRE is especialy capable, probably only the Israeli Sufa and purpose build WRE aircrafts can top that right now. Radar have better range and power (burn through jamming is esential in defender role). 3. F-16 have better combat radius that availble Gripen variants, with CFTs and drop tanks - there is no competition... plus we always can give it Israeli mod with 5 droptanks total, including 600 gal ones on inner underwing stations. And range IS crutial in defender role - time on station is very important if you don't have tankers, or enough airplanes to replace those in the air guarding airspace. 4. '39 IS small, that is correct... small also means low growth potential. The RCS is not really a problem after "Have Glass" program on Viper, and the difference betwen RCS of a Flanker, and a Viper. 5. Viper can operate from 800m runways too... actually hauling the same amount of junk and juice as the '39 on its MTOW. That big engine makes a lot diference. 6. IIRC Saab asked 78 mln USD per aircraft with training, spares, some armament inlcuding their license build AIM-120A, AIM-9M, and Maverics (IRIS-T were to bought later). Lockheed sold F-16 for 82mln USD also with training, spares and armament inlcuding AIM-120C-5, AIM-9X, JDAM, JSOW, Maverics, Panthera targeting and DB-110 recce pods. Hell of a deal if you ask me.

We're just having fun :smilewink: You have to know there was one guy that said those F-16s are old and used... he got bad taste in sweaters, ties, and liked to stop traffic in whole country for... umm... apparently no reason at all.

"old, used.." hahaha, good one :megalol: Those are the newest F-16 airframes in whole Europe (except for the Greece, that begun getting their own b52+ ), and so far the most capable strike fighters in whole continent... though unfortunately not for long, as the Typhoon and Rafale getting closer to their final version - and F-35 getting closer to signing contracts. "old, used" are those Hercs, whose airframes remember rolling down the termac of Saigon Internation during the "fun times", the Vipers are surely not :smartass:

Too bad those are not Juliets. Well at least it can take a truck on board, not like the OTHER aircraft... and actually exists... not like that DIFFERENT aircraft :music_whistling:

HARM warhead detonates when the missile hits the target or passes near it, IIRC it have the proximity fuse of AIM-9L. The funny thing is, its 68kg warhead will be to small to absolutely destroy that radar even at direct hit. It will demage it severly, and made it inoperational for some time, but repair is possible. And the beauty of today SAM sites is they can detect missiles coming their way, and automatically shoot them down (like Patriot, TOR or CIWS) or automatically turn itself off (like the Poprad).

If we sell those, Americans won't be very happy. HARM warhead is to wimpy to destroy it ;)

F-16s didn't achieved their combat readiness yet, so no missions abroad, and no air shows outside Poland either. All 3 squadrons will be ready by 2012, and somewhere around that date, they will be patrolling skies over Iceland. The 3rd ELT will be combat ready next year, so maybe they will send one or two jets to some air shows, but doubt if there would be more than static display - combat training is a priority, aerobatics display will come with time (after media will cut those guy's some slack, so they can push those jets bit harder to know them better). And yes, the Air Force guy's are very pleased and positively surprised with the "Hawks", especialy as these beat anything they were flying earlier, and train on in the States (USAF Block 40s and 50s).

NON-violent ? :music_whistling:

Any aircraft with vertical thrust can do the funnel maneuver, that includes all helicopters, Osprey, Harrier and F-35 - although in case of the last one the on board computer may prohibit such evolutions, as they are simply useless, for anything else than air shows. Although the co-axials are better in it than other designs, as the wind direction is not as important (that's why Russian navy uses only Kamovs), there are always blades advancing into the wind on both sides, so this makes it easier to perform and sustain the funnel.

And the Mi-14 drops like a rock :D Seriously, don't do full autos in it unless you have a death wish, its way to heavy, and landing gear is way to weak.

That's a bit more complicated, when F-16A was made it was Gen 4 fighter, just like MiG-29 9.12. Although with time it grew and become more complex, they are only in the same generation by name, but far apart in missions capability. F-16C Block 52+ have greater range, better (all) electronic systems, better - (in all aspects) weapons, and can do any mission, while 9.12 is limited to fighter role or light CAS - with dumb bombs or unguided rockets. 9.12 is not very good airframe to make upgrades too, so in Poland, the modifications were minimal (IFF, Radios, GPS), and the same in case of other nations using it. It's actually cheaper to buy new aircraft, than upgrade the 9.12, because if you want to upgrade it, you will have to throw everything away from it, into bare airframe... which still have small fuel tanks. Anyway the generations naming is artificial, while the 5th gen is quite obvious with F-22, and F-35 in it, the 4th and 3rd is a bit hazy. For example, why Saab Viggen is considerate a Gen 3 fighter ? It have everything Gen 4 had. And MiG-31 is not really capable of doing anything except being an interceptor, so it not really belong in 4th generation. Rafale, Typhoon, Newest F-16s, F-15s, F/A-18s and Su-27s, are also not really in the same league as the 1970s aircraft, do they ? It's not generation that matters, its the capability. The F-16C/D Block 52+ is in the same generation as MiG-29 9.12, but with capabilities in mind they are ages apart.

Yes, as both rotors are "hard" connected in the main gearbox the sum of both rotation speed will always be constant... until a mechanical failure occur :smilewink: Darn, Alpha bit me to it ;)

This is the absolute minimum of theory needed to fully understand the concept. How would you cut it shorter ?

No, it is not possible in Ka-50, AH-64 or most other attack helicopters. As I said, it may become useful someday, when someone make flyable AH-1 sim :music_whistling: Plus if someone is going for a joy ride in Bell 206, or Robinson R22/44, he now know what to avoid ;)

It's because of how the yaw is induced in coaxials. The yaw is acquired by decreasing torque on one of rotors - for example the Gyrodyne drone had brakes at the ends of blades and Kamovs and Sikorsky change the pitch of both rotors (one is increased while other decreased) in that way the lift is constant, but torque is not. This leads to a serious problem - those rotors are big, and generate more force than a typical tail rotor. While on single rotor aircraft operating the pedals will cause RPM to drop - in coaxials this will happen much quicker. Plus the rotors have to be highly loaded to generate enough torque dissimilarity for turning the helicopter, that's why you need to apply more collective in low RPM situation to still have yaw controls. Plus just adding the disturbence of flow in autorotation, where the air is going from underneeth, pasing one rotor, than another. I don't have chart on that, but it seems the coaxials need a bit higher descent rate to keep RPM of both rotors at optimum - this will result in lower glide rate, which is not great to begin with - for example glide rate of Bell 206 is 2:1, while "non-glideable" F-104 was better at 4:1.

Something that may become useful... someday. How to prevent Mast Bumping in UH-1 and AH-1 (and Bell 47, 206, Robinsons, etc. ): US Army TF 46-6229 :pilotfly:

Yes, I was a bit quick to throw Cobra in there, was I ? :) No "curved canopy" cobras were ever "bulletproof" (not BB guns, but AK rounds and up ;) ), although I heard the flat canopied AH-1F/P/S had strengthened windshield - the front panel - that it could stop 7.62 rounds, "or even" .50 cal at low angles, but I haven't found any proof to that. Flight Manual for AH-1F is silent where it comes to armor. The windshields on Tiger suppose to be "bulletproof", although, they don't seem to be thicker than an inch, and taking that the helicopter is French in design I suspect the real armor to be somewhere in the back ;) Anyway, I can say that the glass on my Timex wrist watch is bullet proof, and can withstand a 30mm hit... writhing in small sized letters, that it have to be hit at 1 degree angle and from 5000 yards away :P

The only "bulletproof" glass panels present, are the front one's. And they protect up to .50 cal, so not much difference there. It's the same as Cobra, Tiger, Mongoose and Roivalk. Actually Ka-50, Mi-28 and Apache (in case of pilot only) might be better protected.

That second part of my post was directed to every one, other than you ;) As far the "new" Hinds, well the only reasonable are the Mi-35M and Super Hinds. Although the '35M even having more power, carries less ordinance, and have lower speed, and its turret still covers only 1/3rd of what a turret of true attack helicopters can cover (Mi-28, Tiger, Cobra, Apache etc.). The Super Hind on the other hand have very capable turret, that might be a real pain in butt especially during aerial fight (high bullet speed), but both still have the major disadvantages in crash worthiness, and having stacked major components in one place, that is very juicy for all G-A and A-A weapons (geometrical position, heat and radar return will drive everything to hit where the main gearbox is located). Every design is flawed, every helicopter can be downed by lucky AK shot, but I can't find one advantage over the Tiger, except of the price tag. And for the record - I don't like the Tiger ;)

The crash Kusch linked was indeed caused by hitting a truck with main rotor in banked turn. Cygan, remember, that there were little casualty because it all happened meters from medic station, lots of people were there and pulled everyone from the wreckage while the engines were still running. If it happened in combat area, those people wouldn't had much chance and would probably burned in that wreckage. I'm not bashing people for liking that helicopter, if you say that you like it looks, and the atmosphere it had around it, thats great, heck its my mom favored chopper (!). But if you say it is best for today's battlefield, than my friend, you are far from the truth. And as tolerant person, I will stomp you until you agree with me :D

@Malleus Flying tank my <edited>, The only true Armor on that helicopter are the front windshields, if you fire at ti from sides, bellow or back, you have good chance of hitting something important. @Feuerfalke Afghanistan was 20 years after introduction of Hind, it didn't change much. The true doctrine that Hind was designed to fight in, was all about throwing high number of helicopters, flying at high speed over battlefield, laying wall of hell fire over enemy units. It was a flying Katiusha, just like Su-25 - only it could land closer to front line for rearming. There were no lessons learned after Afghanistan, propaganda said it was doing perfect, the modifications done during the war - mounting flare dispensers and exhaust coolers, were considerate perfect... Well nothing could be further from the truth, as Americans were actually learning from that conflict, especially when it come to Stinger missiles, which very quickly became smarter - not so easy to fool by flares, and sensitive enough to still home on even modified soviet helicopters. And Soviet design of having engines exhaust directly near main gearbox, just under rotor head, was actually tragic, missile hit almost always resulted in total loss of the machine - too many, too important elements in one place. The Kiowa, Blackhawk, Huey you mentioned... you know those helicopters are small, all of them are smaller than the Hind == harder to hit, while the Blackhawk and Huey carry more troops. Blackhawk design is far more superior to the hind where it comes to surviving hits, and crashes. The losses were experienced only because they were doing what you want the Hind to do - stay stationary for a period of time - long enough to load/unload troops. Can you spell "Bullet magnet" ? :smartass: Poland had 6 Mi-24 in Iraq, one crashed at takeoff, and one already was fired upon by small arms fire, that forced it to emergency landing. Flying tank my <edited>, that was an 7.62x54mm PKM! Apparently Iraqi insurgents didn't got the memo about Mi-24 being armored :smilewink: I don't know why you put tanks in here, especially Merkava. That tank was designed for desert warfare, very heavy armor, engine compartment up front, turret shifted back - that design allowed to have an emergency exit in the rear of the tank. the "troop transport capability" is really nonexistent in that tank, because those troop will have to go to that small, claustrophobic corridor between the turret basked and the emergency exit at the back. Two soldiers max, kneeling, it wont even fit a stretcher! And you can't simply compare it to M1A2, or Leo2, as the Merkava was designed to fight on the desert, while both Leo2 and Abrams to fight in western Europe. If you outflank that Israeli tank - its crew have not much chance getting out of it alive.

Are you insulting me ? ;) Where did I wrote that Ka-50 can carry troops ? I only said that Hokum, just like Hind, and AH.7 is a bad choice for anti insurgent warfare attack/CAS helicopter. What an good anti-insurgence helicopter should have is an good capability to suppress or kill small pop-up targets. Hokum can't do that, it needs other helicopter to find those targets for it, because one man can't fly helicopter and look for people. Tanks - yeah, people - not really. Even with two person crew of the experimental Ka-52 it still have long response time, because it don't have a turret with enough coverage to point the gun and fire it at target before it goes out of sight. AH.7 and other Lynxes, also lac that capability, although maned with snipers, have some success in Iraq, but that's makeshift solution, and have very limited capability. Helicopter have to fly slow and low making itself a perfect target, not only for MANPADs, but also small arms fire, and non-guided RPGs. The Hind... most of them have low firepower of the main gun, or it is fixed, needing more maneuvering than the Ka-50. Only the Mi-24VP, Mi-24VM, Mi-35M and South African Super Hind, have enough firepower and ability do direct it where is needed - they have dual 23mm cannon turret, or singular 20mm cannon turret. Although the accuracy of such equipped Mi-24s (not Super Hinds) may be insufficient. Than there goes the survivability. As most of them are not armored enough, because the overall design concept make them huge, and heavy - there is not much power left for carrying armor (1.5 ton less than Mi-8 !), so small arms fire may be dangerous. Than in case of shooting the helicopter down, or by simple mechanical failure, the crash is very dangerous for the crew, as there are no crash worthy seats, nor the airframe construction is designed to absorb at least small portion of the impact force. The whole airframe because of its size and design is not very rigid, so it will shred itself to pieces with slight ground resonance or contacting ground with forward speed. And there is that heavy power system that will go straight into the crew compartment. Maybe Kusch have pictures from something like decade ago crash of one of Polish Mi-24s at one of our ranges... not a pretty sight.

The Apache, Cobra, Tiger, Mongoose, Roivalk, and Havok, are "best bang for buck" where it comes to having something that will work both in classical and anti-insurgents warfare. Sorry but helicopters like Hind, AH-Lynx, Ka-50 etc. won't cut it. Carrying troops in expensive helicopter that an attack helicopter is - is simply silly. Attack helicopter should be staying away from positions where it can be fired at - hard lesson that US Army had in Iraq. It should be in constant movement, not stopping for troops deployment - thats where you're sending less expensive aircrafts. If you want an attack platform for anti-insurgent warfare, than the Hind is wrong choice. Actually what you need is an gunship, designed similarly to the AC-130U: Big gun - 30, or 40mm with programmable ammunition, plus some rockets and missiles. MH-60L + RAMICS would do the job. Hind would not.

Unfortunately your sarcastic in nature comment may be true :smilewink: Just think about it. In Warsaw Pact and country's sponsored by it, you couldn't get any other attack helicopter, that means after the fall of Berlin wall, there are many users out there, but changing it to other helicopter, means spending a lot of money! Modern attack helicopter costs 18-26 mln USD, twice more for training of flight and ground crew, spares, armament, tools, maintenance facilities, etc. If someone is using say 30 helicopters it is way cheaper to replace the older with newer ones, or modernize all, no matter what the helicopter is (Cobra or Hind). That's why Iran is still using Cobras, not Hinds ! The second thing is the ease of procurement, it is tough to get an AH-1 for a PMC or some rouge state, but there are many Hinds out there, literally laying around, and if you can't buy them directly from Russian government, there are many civilian corporations that deal with selling them. It is also easier and way cheaper to buy Russian (actually Soviet ;) ) ammunition. There is also the thing of paying debts, that Russia prefer to give somebody military equipment than money - Czech got their Mi-35 that way. Most operators fly Hinds not because they are "soo good" but because they don't have a choice. Poland, Czech, Slovakia, Hungary - they would be long flying Apaches or Tigers if the could afford it !

Attack helicopter is for attacking, transport helicopter is for transporting... multipurpose helicopter is a decoy :smilewink: