Apache damage modeling

[Kusch]

This AH-64 hit by SA-7, and sucess return to base:

 

 

[joey45]

This AH-64 hit by SA-7, and sucess return to base:

 

on what a truck....:megalol:. that was luck...very good luck at that.

[Sundowner.pl]

 

That one wasn't so lucky

[bradmick]

I know the guy that that particular bit of nastiness happened to. He's one of the IP's down here actually. One of the few to survive just such an attack.

 

Brad

[JaNk0]

Takes alot of skills to manage back home with a Apache in that condition

[Force_Feedback]

Are those windows made of the same stuf as your ordinary flastic bottle? How come they're so thin? Somebody cheaped out of the crew protection during the design, or did the inner layers somehow became detatched due to the blast wave?

[Sundowner.pl]

Well not really, the toughest glass part is the one separating crew members - it's 1,75 inch thick, made to take a 23mm direct hit not killing both crew members (actually the gunner is pretty much screwed ;) ). The side acrylic panels are thin, something around half of inch thick, they have to be so thin for:

a. do not bent the light, so a pilot can see through them without distortions

b. for the emergency system to work - there is an detonation cord, that blew off all 4 side panels - so they can't bee to heavy - because that would need more explosives to blow them away - and more explosives may be a threat to the crew.

 

Those side panels won't stop a rifle bullet, but have high chances of stopping low energy shrapnels from mortal grenades or missile fragmentation warheads. The main armor of the Apache cockpit are the ceramic plates in crew seats, floor, and some ballistic foam + Kevlar that the fuselage is filled with.

[TorwaK]

This AH-64 hit by SA-7, and sucess return to base:

 

Kuch if you ask me it returned to home on a track :)

[Geier]

Kuch if you ask me it returned to home on a track :)

Hmm... blades're too short:P

[Force_Feedback]

Geier (19:29:39)

английский сериал про подростков, траву, секс и т.д.

 

Shalnoi (19:32:31)

Какая на хрен трава? Какой секс? Су-25 дайте!

 

Hahahahahaha, but we already have it (and weed as well) in lomac :p

 

That is some impressive damage, but I never actually believed the transparent armor on the Ah-64 was so thing, that's really a bummer. The Ka-50 has some stone age flat 5cm thick glass plates, capable of taking 12.7mm hits (two). The Mi-24 has some thick acrylyc plates as well 3 or 4 cm. And remember boys and girls, that was a portable SAM, an old one. The Iraqi farmer story just got significantly more realistic IMHO.

[Sundowner.pl]

Well think of Apache like of an lizard, that can loose its tail and survive. Apache doesn't have heavy armor against heavy missiles, there's always something that will get through it and blow protected elements away. This chopper part can be blow away but the whole will still function, and still be able to fly to safety. There's no need of bolting in heavy armor plates, when hit - engine will be damaged, and without these heavy armor, the second can still fly you back home. Apaches best armor is its agility, stealthiness, crew situational awareness, and warning/countermeasure systems.

 

The best protection against a missile, or AAA, is not to be shot at in the first place.

 

 

Anyway, look at the Tiger, or Mongoose, the toughest armor part on those are the crew Kevlar vests :lol:

[Weta43]

Well think of Apache like of an lizard, that can loose its tail and survive.

 

?? - Only until its spiraling wreckage connects with the ground ...

[Yellonet]

?? - Only until its spiraling wreckage connects with the ground ...

:lol:

[bogusheadbox]

Correct me if i am wrong. But wouldn't any single rotor hellicopter that lost its tail rotor be in seriously deep do do.

 

As in unflyable and unrecoverable ?

[Sundowner.pl]

Correct me if i am wrong. But wouldn't any single rotor hellicopter that lost its tail rotor be in seriously deep do do.

 

As in unflyable and unrecoverable ?

That depands. Mostly on when that happends. You have to know that the tail rotor is not the only thing that counter the torque of the main rotor. Vertical stabilizer, and tail boom does this also.

 

When you loose a tail rotor in hover or low speed fly, you are pretty much screwed, and only thing that may help you now is your seat and design of the fuselage - will it make your crash 'soft' enough to survive it.

 

When at high speed, you may have enough air flow through vertical stabilizer, to counter most of the torque. It's there because, the tail rotor have very little efficiency when air passes perpendicularly to the rotate axle. Helicopter will still tend to turn, but you have chances for successful running landing.. yet prepare yourself for rolling over.

 

Biggest chances in surviving such event you have in Fenestron® equipped helicopters, because their rotor have zero efficiency in high speed flight - so the vertical stabilizer have to be so huge, it provide all the anti-torque force you need.

[arneh]

When you loose a tail rotor in hover or low speed fly, you are pretty much screwed, and only thing that may help you now is your seat and design of the fuselage - will it make your crash 'soft' enough to survive it.

 

That's not quite true, you can still autorotate normally without a tail rotor (well turning is going to be a bit harder). So shouldn't be much worse than losing all engine power, although that is of course also pretty bad, particulary at hover/slow speed and low altitude. But you can make a fairly smooth, none-crashy landing. And you're not just a passenger on the way to a crash landing which you seem to imply.

[Sundowner.pl]

Well in most cases, you may have to chose the place you crash ;) Yes you're right, you may recover, when you have enough altitude, and aircraft is responsive, to put it into dive, gain speed, and that change your odds, to the situation to high-speed-no-tailrotor one. Yet you can't talk about autorotation in this case. Autorotaton is using air flow to power the rotor in controlled descend. In most cases (almost all) loosing tail rotor in hover or low speed fly occurs at relatively low altitude, and result in crash.

[Legolasindar]

Interesting.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FcBQYIdprk

[Smith]

I'm interested in the damage modelling of the Apache in DCS. But there is no picture out there. :cry:

[Yellonet]

I'm interested in the damage modelling of the Apache in DCS. But there is no picture out there. :cry:

They might not have gotten that far in the modeling process, it's still about 2 years from release if they go ahead and release the A-10 first as indicated.

[Geier]

Geier (19:29:39)

английский сериал про подростков, траву, секс и т.д.

 

Shalnoi (19:32:31)

Какая на хрен трава? Какой секс? Су-25 дайте!

 

Hahahahahaha, but we already have it (and weed as well) in lomac :p

 

 

LOL, F_F:P

We have it in LO no doubt. But we wabt it in DCS at the same level as Ka50, new A10A - with a clickable cockpit etc:)

[Force_Feedback]

Still, I'm a bit shocked the Apache has so little regard for the crew's life put into its design, the excuse 'not to get hit in the first place' applies to all choppers, so don't bother using it. The thing was really designed for tank busting, and not for your insurgent/freedom fighter blasting, why are they not up-armoring them for Iraq/Stan/Iran? Take the Ka-50/Mi-28, they have a task similar to the Ah-64, yet they have the best crew protection that is possible without letting the weight go up too much, the Apache's transparencies can handle what? A .22LR, maybe 9mm parabellum soft core? And it has like kevlar for underside protection, man, I believe the Iraqi farmer story, that thing is seriousely underarmored. If the Iraqis has some 12.7mm (Soviet .50 cal) machine guns and some cover those apaches would be in some serious trouble.

Do the crew members at least have parachutes, or will the 'they're flying too low' apply in this case?

[Yellonet]

Still, I'm a bit shocked the Apache has so little regard for the crew's life put into its design, the excuse 'not to get hit in the first place' applies to all choppers, so don't bother using it. The thing was really designed for tank busting, and not for your insurgent/freedom fighter blasting, why are they not up-armoring them for Iraq/Stan/Iran? Take the Ka-50/Mi-28, they have a task similar to the Ah-64, yet they have the best crew protection that is possible without letting the weight go up too much, the Apache's transparencies can handle what? A .22LR, maybe 9mm parabellum soft core? And it has like kevlar for underside protection, man, I believe the Iraqi farmer story, that thing is seriousely underarmored. If the Iraqis has some 12.7mm (Soviet .50 cal) machine guns and some cover those apaches would be in some serious trouble.

Do the crew members at least have parachutes, or will the 'they're flying too low' apply in this case?

I hope the AH-64 fans look forward to getting their character killed by small arms fire or shrapnel :D

Parachute? Can you even get out of a crashing chopper? Avoid the rotor? If anything there should be an exstensive airbag system.

[Sundowner.pl]

Apache crews don't need parachutes, this chopper can protect the crew in most crash scenarios. It can take a 23mm in the belly, or 50.cal in the windshield, from sides the seats are the protection, not the acrylic panels, although those offer some protection against small arms fire.

 

A lot of armor adds weight and reduces visibility, making the flight itself dangerous!

 

Apaches armor is mostly ballistic foam and Kevlar, this offers as much protection as steel sheets while being lighter, and offering force absorption during the crash. Apache is probably the best compromise between survivability and agility on the market. For example, if you want wheeled 8x8 APC to withstand a 30mm AP round hit, it have to weight 30 tons or more... Attack Helicopters are similar in size. the best thing you can do is protect the most precious systems from being hit by 20/23mm ammo, and that's what Apache do. 30,35,40 mm... those you can't protect from using armor, and those are very common on todays battlefield.

[Yellonet]

Apache crews don't need parachutes, this chopper can protect the crew in most crash scenarios. It can take a 23mm in the belly, or 50.cal in the windshield, from sides the seats are the protection, not the acrylic panels, although those offer some protection against small arms fire.

 

A lot of armor adds weight and reduces visibility, making the flight itself dangerous!

 

Apaches armor is mostly ballistic foam and Kevlar, this offers as much protection as steel sheets while being lighter, and offering force absorption during the crash. Apache is probably the best compromise between survivability and agility on the market. For example, if you want wheeled 8x8 APC to withstand a 30mm AP round hit, it have to weight 30 tons or more... Attack Helicopters are similar in size. the best thing you can do is protect the most precious systems from being hit by 20/23mm ammo, and that's what Apache do. 30,35,40 mm... those you can't protect from using armor, and those are very common on todays battlefield.

Crew protection from the side seems to be quite weak, thin windows, and the pilot seems to be sitting with almost his whole body up in the window... ouch. I'm guessing that fragmenting rounds would be highly effective against an Apache.