Super 530 and Mirage performance against SU-27

[Fri13]

 

Stinger missiles were deadly for Russian helicopters in Afghanistan, we saw other case since then.

So I don't see why it should be a problem for Fox 2.

 

Before USA even shipped stingers to Afghanistan they started to promote their deadliness and huge changes.

Almost every launch was counted as kill for stinger, even when missiles missed or just caused helicopter (after lucky hit) to start smoking and never crash.

 

http://europauniversitypress.co.uk/auth_article416.html

Edited December 8, 2016 by Fri13

[jojo]

From your article:

Although the helicopters were avoiding the most vulnerable mid-altitudes, some of the photos showed them at distances at which they would have been vulnerable even to RPG rounds, graphically refuting the claims that after the arrival of the STINGERs, helicopters flew only at very high altitudes and avoided any situations where they would have been within range.

 

Russian helicopters have been seen doing this in Syria where MANPADs presence id acknowledged.

 

Yet the point is: IR GUIDANCE DO WORK VS HELICOPTERS.

 

So let's not get distracted with propaganda stories. There are enough videos on YouTube to prove the point.

 

Helicopters are not magic things that escape both IR and radar detection.

[Fri13]

From your article:

 

 

Russian helicopters have been seen doing this in Syria where MANPADs presence id acknowledged.

 

Yet the point is: IR GUIDANCE DO WORK VS HELICOPTERS.

 

So let's not get distracted with propaganda stories. There are enough videos on YouTube to prove the point.

 

Helicopters are not magic things that escape both IR and radar detection.

 

I never claimed that they escape IR guidance.... But IR jammer that modulates and flare and IR suppressors does a lot. Not perfect but a lot to render IR missiles even less likely to hit.

 

And as I explained, radar needs a special mode to be able to lock on helicopter and guide missiles on it. Typical modes doesn't work and radars were required to get that capability, just like shoot-down-look-down capability.

 

It ain't the helicopter speed that is the problem, the rotor disk itself is the problem.

 

And none of those ain't simulated in DCS,just like radar itself ain't simulated at all.

Edited December 8, 2016 by Fri13

[jojo]

That radar modes are available.

See the friendly fire incident in Irak in 1994 cited above.

 

The Black Hawk were spotted 35Nm away by F-15.

And all sorts of radar can spot helicopters.

 

Oh great DIRCM. I didn't know it was standard on DCS World helicopters !

 

All that is out of topic anyway (Su 27 Vs M-2000C).

[ZHeN]

The Black Hawk were spotted 35Nm away by F-15.

40nm

[jojo]

40nm

 

At 10:22, Wickson, flying at 27,000 feet (8,230 m), reported a radar contact on a low-flying, slow-moving aircraft 40 miles (64 km)

 

These are 40 statute miles, 1 mile = 1.609km

1 Nm = 1.852km

 

So 35Nm = 64.82 km.

Edited December 8, 2016 by jojo

[Fri13]

That radar modes are available.

See the friendly fire incident in Irak in 1994 cited above.[\quote]

 

Depends from radar and block. 1994 is future in DCS....

 

The Black Hawk were spotted 35Nm away by F-15.

And all sorts of radar can spot helicopters.[\quote]

 

I didn't claim they can't spot them, you can even hear the type via radar sound system. But you can't lock on them and so on guide missiles in if radar and block doesn't support it.

 

Oh great DIRCM. I didn't know it was standard on DCS World helicopters !

 

Actually mi-8 does have it... KA-50 SHOULD have it too, mi-24 in DCS has it...

 

All that is out of topic anyway (Su 27 Vs M-2000C).

 

Check the thread... It is in the topic, I only replied to radar modes of both of those about slowly flying targets (!=helicopters as is)... As helicopter flies about speed of sound to all directions but stay still, why radars has difficulties to lock on or see around them.

There is reasons too why military and civilian air traffic control had problems with windmills and a like s they ain't just slowly flying fixed wings...

[red_coreSix]

Check the thread... It is in the topic, I only replied to radar modes of both of those about slowly flying targets (!=helicopters as is)... As helicopter flies about speed of sound to all directions but stay still, why radars has difficulties to lock on or see around them.

There is reasons too why military and civilian air traffic control had problems with windmills and a like s they ain't just slowly flying fixed wings...

 

The helicopter doesn't fly in all directions at the speed of sound, the doppler reading is just ambiguous. A radar designed to recognize this pattern will ignore the doppler and just work off of something else to get speed.

And windmills move pretty slowly, they generate doppler noise but, again, you can blend those out with a simple filter.

 

We can assume that the mirage radar was build with tracking helicopters in mind. But it seems to be a choice of ED to make radar missiles have difficulties tracking helicopters which applies to all radar missiles. Not necessarily accurate for specific radars but the best we can get.

[jojo]

Allegedly 1994 is future for DCS, but the DIRCM system you pointed on YouTube wasn't available in 1994, nor is fielded in large number today.

That is quite different from the "disco ball" of the 90'

 

You want to speak about F-15C variants in DCS ? What about AIM-120C ? Was it available in 1994 ?

 

Do you think that FC3 F-15C is accurate enough to represent a specific block variant ?

 

And I can assure you a lot of radar systems of the 90' can lock on helicopters.

 

Back to DCS, a Magic 2 detonating on Mi-8 isn't enough to take it down, it still flies with some half rotor blade.

[zerO_crash]

The problem with a radar and helicopters ain't the helicopter speed, but the main rotors. They generate very large and false echo to radars and requires radar to be capable handle especially rotors.

The rotor disk is to radar the whole surface area.

The rotors rotate at high speeds and low speed simultaneously (end of blade and root of the blade) and it continually is moving to all directions as blades are rotating towards radar, away from radar and left, right etc. So this is why earlier radars can't lock on helicopter and helicopter cause serious jammer effect to general direction.

 

I don't even know does Mirage 2000C even suppose to have a capability track helicopters, or any other aircraft in DCS to do so either.

 

Uhm, no quite right. When helicopters move slow (< 100km/h approx.), the doppler filter on your aircraft will reject them as stationary objects and now show them. Irrelevant of how big the rotor disc is. This is true if you use High-PRF search setting.

 

If you use Low-PRF, the doppler filter will be disabled, and your radar will scan precisely like a pulse radar, meaning being able to show everything, be it stationary or not (and here the rotor disc size plays a role). What is to keep in mind, is that in this mode, you will get much interference off the ground, if flying low, where helicopters usually operate. Therefore, this is not always an available means of detecting helicopters.

 

Earlier radars cannot lock on helicopters, what??? Which ones exactly couldn`t? None I have heard of, and the only difficulty here being again, low altitude = much interference to pulse radars (which were the first ones used). As far I as I can see, it`s a wrong statement. Or did you mean something else? Keep in mind, radar waves are much much faster than a blade moving in a rotor, for every given distance displaced by the rotor blade, there are huge amounts of radar waves being reflected off them. Now, measure the time of say a second, count how many revolutions the rotor-head has made (blades), and notice how many returning radar waves you get within that short time. A lot. A rotor disc (when moving), is to a radar what a cake would be to a kid. The thing you mention with direction of the blades really is irrelevant and a non issue, as if you look at rotor blades moving in slow motion, you will see how they flap and flex. Therefore they change their shape (as seen by radar, of course the shape of the blade remains the same with exception of bending etc...) and are easily picked up by a radar.

 

Again, I am not sure what you mean with any radar not being able (or shouldn`t be, as you write) to pick up a helicopter. Are you forgetting that besides the rotor disc (which is the main aspect increasing cross-section of helicopters) there is also the helicopter body?

[amazingme]

errr..

 

I also find that Super 530 is harder to evade. In pure head to head bvr and no awacs I would say mirage has slight advantage.

 

But if there is an AWACS the flanker get very good picture on its hdd and can turn its radar off using only irst and the mirage will never know where this r73 came from. :)

 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

 

The same is true for the Mirage.. but..R-73 in BVR mode??

[metzger]

The same is true for the Mirage.. but..R-73 in BVR mode??

Not realy, at some point mirage will have to turn its radar on to lock.

Su get the targets on the hdd via DL it does not have to ask for bearing every second which makes it easier to go around the target and approach from outside the radar cone.

With awacs, su can stay hidden and get close enough from left/right of the mirage's radar cone, lock with irst and shoot r73 wvr or ET at longer range.

 

I m not saying it will always work but it gives the su27 an advantage at certain situations.

It is all about combination of tactics/pilot skill and knowing your and opponent aircraft capabilities.

 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[amazingme]

........

I m not saying it will always work but it gives the su27 an advantage at certain situations.

It is all about combination of tactics/pilot skill and knowing your and opponent aircraft capabilities.

 

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

Now you're getting closer to the truth..

[cauldron]

At 10:22, Wickson, flying at 27,000 feet (8,230 m), reported a radar contact on a low-flying, slow-moving aircraft 40 miles (64 km)

 

These are 40 statute miles, 1 mile = 1.609km

1 Nm = 1.852km

 

So 35Nm = 64.82 km.

 

JoJo,

 

A flight report of "40 miles" is without reservation NM not statute miles, i believe the author of the text mis-translated to KM... an aviation report using SM would undoubtedly be remarked upon as SM as SM are clearly useless data for the most part in aviation.

 

Authors of text often abuse the Km to miles equivalents to satisfy the plurality of readers, and are not clear if it's themselves annotating the report or if it's from the report itself.

 

Thus i would recommend that one should be be critical of the author, and not to asses the "km" equivalent used by the author as confirmation that the "miles" report from the pilot was in SM and not NM.

 

Small point but if its used to quantify the report of miles as NOT NM but in SM to be highly questionable.

[jojo]

I disagree. In report for general public, the US often use mile for statute mile, and they don't specify. Even in specialized aeronautical media you can encounter this issue.

[GGTharos]

40nm, nm is implied. Generally there are no translations from nm to sm - reporters may simply mis-understand. The reports of pilots are taken as they are.

 

If you listen to radios well, you'll hear them calling 'miles' for the distance ... well it's not sm. :)

[mia389]

I disagree. In report for general public, the US often use mile for statute mile, and they don't specify. Even in specialized aeronautical media you can encounter this issue.

 

I assure you we use nm for everything but weather. Weather is reported in SM in a METAR. Everything in the plane is NM. ATC reports to me are also NM. My position reports to them are NM.

 

This is from someone that flys US Airspace weekly.

[jojo]

Of course in the plane it's Nm.

 

I'm talking about press article and report for public. And there you often find SM as we often find distance translated in km in French articles.

 

40 miles (64km) is statute miles conversion...

[cauldron]

Well I believe it's the fault of the author in not being clear, but one thing is clear: it's not known for certain and you cannot make that a point of argument, and in any rational sense it is not a strong point to base further conjecture upon.

 

Aviation reports in general whether civil or military or FAA or released reports to the "public" tend to be in the US in NM not SM, this isn't the highway patrol or some crappy news network like CNN you know. If a pilot is quoted as saying "40 miles" in an investigation it's a high confidence that they are NOT converting to Statute miles.

 

A good author will, if they are converting, mention that they have paraphrased the source to SM from NM. Assuming the other way around is dubious and with an unknown, i'd favor Occam's razor over anything else - at the very least leave it as unknown.

[cauldron]

Of course in the plane it's Nm.

 

I'm talking about press article and report for public. And there you often find SM as we often find distance translated in km in French articles.

 

40 miles (64km) is statute miles conversion...

 

JoJo,

 

With due respect to you the journalist may not know better what they are reading and may assume that 40 miles is in SM and thus print an article with a conversion to KM from SM.. but its from the journalist, not from the source. I'd assume such conversions while mathematically correct are wrong as the journalist is wrong in reading the data in the first place.

 

Fyi... most, not all, but most journalists in the US know about as much about aviation as they do about their speedometer in their car... i.e NOT a lot. I've got over 30 years flying experience with experience in incidents and accidents, and the FAA, journalist interpretations are not to be taken as fact, always go to the raw data for that or an expert and always be critically minded.

 

Recall your quote of the investigation: The pilot is quoted as saying "40 miles" that's it, the [km] part of that is from the author, i'm positive the pilot did not under questioning say "40 miles or 64km"... he would have been taken as being facetious to his judges which i doubt that happened. We who are doubting the 64km issue are doubting the conversion, it's clear the pilot stated in NM, why would an author knowingly err a report if not from simple ignorance? i doubt its malicious.

Edited December 20, 2016 by cauldron

[jojo]

I don't even know if anyone of you took the time to read it:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1994_Black_Hawk_shootdown_incident

 

The whole page is filled with miles, nautical miles, feet, meters, km and conversion from one unit system to the other.

Wickson's VID pass was conducted at a speed of about 450 knots (520 mph; 830 km/h)

...

About 20 seconds later, May fired an AIM-9 Sidewinder missile at the lead helicopter from a range of about 1.5 nautical miles (2.8 km), hitting and shooting it down also about 1.2 miles (2 km) northeast of the trail helicopter (36°55′N 43°30′E)

 

So when he means nautical miles he writes "nautical miles".

 

At this point I don't care anymore, since it's totally off topic in the first place.

Believe what you want.

[cauldron]

We were trying to help you understand why, that's all. If you refuse it is your prerogative. fyi...-I read the entire document in ref to the shoot down thank you.

 

while we are on talking about "reading" is there a "single" reference in that document even once about statute miles ?

Edited December 20, 2016 by cauldron