Reasoning for the Ka-50 cannon mounting.

[MBot]

I'm not sure I could maneuvre the helicopter out of the way AND aim the turret at the same time . . . .

 

That is why true attack helicopters are two-seaters :D

[159th_Viper]

That is why true attack helicopters are two-seaters :D

 

......and as for the manpower aspect you'll get two Kamov's for every one Apache: Twice as much bang for your buck :D

[MBot]

Is it just me, or is the theme of the day finding ways to get shot down in your Ka50?

It's not just you, the Apache fanbois don't like anyone saying that the Ka-50 could kick it's ass :megalol:

 

Well I don't think we talk about unreasonable situations. One of the dangers when hovering behind a ridgeline engaging distant vehicles is a threat that appears from a unexpected direction threatening your battle position. That might be a guy with a Stinger on his back, an infantry patrol or a Dshk machinegun opening fire trough the folliage or whaterver. Your battle position might give you cover against the expected direction of the enemy, but I think it would be foolish to assume it is a completly safe place. I for one would prefere to have a gun turret in those situations to quickly suppress any such pop-up threat while being free to disengage. It's not about the Apache vs. Ka-50, it's about turret vs. no-turret.

 

Let's not even start about mutual support in your formation when expieriencing pup-up threats on transits or providing suppression for C-SAR missions. A gun-turret is a great thing to quickly put pressure on a threat. And to engage targets at long range with precision fire I will be using ATGM's anyway...

[Yellonet]

Well I don't think we talk about unreasonable situations. One of the dangers when hovering behind a ridgeline engaging distant vehicles is a threat that appears from a unexpected direction threatening your battle position. That might be a guy with a Stinger on his back, an infantry patrol or a Dshk machinegun opening fire trough the folliage or whaterver. Your battle position might give you cover against the expected direction of the enemy, but I think it would be foolish to assume it is a completly safe place. I for one would prefere to have a gun turret in those situations to quickly suppress any such pop-up threat while being free to disengage. It's not about the Apache vs. Ka-50, it's about turret vs. no-turret.

 

Let's not even start about mutual support in your formation when expieriencing pup-up threats on transits or providing suppression for C-SAR missions. A gun-turret is a great thing to quickly put pressure on a threat. And to engage targets at long range with precision fire I will be using ATGM's anyway...

If the russian pilot detects a nearby threat he just kicks the door open and blasts away with his trusty AK :gun_rifle:

 

Seriously though, there are pros and cons with both designs, they're just not meant for the same type of engagements. I'd say that turret guns are mostly for medium to close range engagement of infantry and lightly armored vehicles and area suppression. Fixed/semi fixed guns tend to be larger with more accuracy thus being more suiatble for engaging targets at greater distances and with higher power, thus being more effective against single targets.

It's somewhat like a comparison between MBTs and IFVs.

[MBot]

Seriously though, there are pros and cons with both designs, they're just not meant for the same type of engagements. I'd say that turret guns are mostly for medium to close range engagement of infantry and lightly armored vehicles and area suppression. Fixed/semi fixed guns tend to be larger with more accuracy thus being more suiatble for engaging targets at greater distances and with higher power, thus being more effective against single targets.

It's somewhat like a comparison between MBTs and IFVs.

 

I think that hits it pretty well. I agree and that is why I think that a gun turret is a great supplement for the ATGM main-armament.

[Yellonet]

I think that hits it pretty well. I agree and that is why I think that a gun turret is a great supplement for the ATGM main-armament.

I respect your opinion and partly agree, but you have to admit that the 2A42 wins the male limb comparison contest :megalol:

[RvETito]

No matter what you say, the Ah-64 still is the best, combat proven attack helicopter in the world, and although the Ka-50 is more agile, and can dance in the skies, the Apache can carry 16 Hellfires to finish off 16 tanks or other vehicles.

 

There's no such thing as best. In some cases- maybe, but in other- hmmmm... How does it perform high in the mountains? If you talk about combat proven helicopter the first place goes without any doubt to the Mi-24. The missions flown, jobs done, damage taken and still flying- nothing comes close.

The Apache has many advantages- modern avionics, heavy armament, maneuverability- all these are perfect for sneaky stand-off attacks, which prouved very successful in Desert Storm and Iraki Freedom but that's only one specific theater for which the Apache fits perfectly. What about Kosovo in 1999? Two of them crashed in the Albanian mountains without even getting into battle. Or Afghanistan?

[159th_Viper]

I respect your opinion and partly agree, but you have to admit that the 2A42 wins the male limb comparison contest :megalol:

 

ROFL:megalol:

[Yellonet]

There's no such thing as best. In some cases- maybe, but in other- hmmmm... How does it perform high in the mountains? If you talk about combat proven helicopter the first place goes without any doubt to the Mi-24. The missions flown, jobs done, damage taken and still flying- nothing comes close.

The Apache has many advantages- modern avionics, heavy armament, maneuverability- all these are perfect for sneaky stand-off attacks, which prouved very successful in Desert Storm and Iraki Freedom but that's only one specific theater for which the Apache fits perfectly. What about Kosovo in 1999? Two of them crashed in the Albanian mountains without even getting into battle. Or Afghanistan?

I get the feeling that we will see a lot of whining about the Apache not being the best in all respects when it is released. "omg apache is so undermodeled!!!11" :lol:

[Mugatu]

There's a little footage here of the Tigers gun in action, both Turret and wing mounted versions, bit of in cockpit footage too, not too shabby even on the run :)

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGF2caKDgEA

[Yo-Yo]

Indeed, it's even more than two times greater.

A fast calculation gives that:

 

Muzzle energy

M230 - 75 kJ

2A42 - 187 kJ

 

Edit: stupid yello can't remember formulas :(

 

You are not correct: recoil of 1 shot is proprtional to m*V. To be accurate, the total recoil is proprtional to sum of m_shell*v_shell + v_gases*propellent_mass

Continious firing recoil (AVERAGE FORCE) thus is proportional to rate of fire, shell and propellant masses and their velocities.

[Yellonet]

You are not correct: recoil of 1 shot is proprtional to m*V. To be accurate, the total recoil is proprtional to sum of m_shell*v_shell + v_gases*propellent_mass

Continious firing recoil (AVERAGE FORCE) thus is proportional to rate of fire, shell and propellant masses and their velocities.

Aha... thanks for correcting me :)

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

No matter what you say, the Ah-64 still is the best, combat proven attack helicopter in the world, and although the Ka-50 is more agile, and can dance in the skies, the Apache can carry 16 Hellfires to finish off 16 tanks or other vehicles.

Back in 1999 there were propaganda pamphlets dropped all over Yugoslavia about Apache arrival. You should see some of those … When Apache arrived, with great pomp, it turned out it could not do of what it was designed to do.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I love Apache. It is an excellent helicopter. But, its success in Iraq must be put in perspective. As well as its failure over Yugoslavia.

[Force_Feedback]

Hey I posted that to keep the fanbois off me, it's a great chopper, but not 'invincible' like the propaganda says, and is probably prone to "engine failures". In NATO, engine failures=shootdown. Iraq is flat and hot, Yugoslavia is mountanous, I'd say the Apache should have performed better in the Kosovo dispute than in Iraq, but Iraq is flat. Afghanistan however is a better example.

[Flyby]

hey guys, can I assume that the performance of the Ka50 makes it ideal for mountain terrain? If so, then the mission builders whould have a ball! :D What do I mean by this? Somebody make up my mind for me.:megalol:

Flyby

ps I', really looking forward to team tactics online with Black Shark. No turrets, but mutual protection and high SA might decide who comes back from a good mission.

[forlorn]

As far as I heard from guys who saw Apaches in Kosovo the Apaches had alot of trouble with the terrain, winds and their own size in that terrain.

[RvETito]

hey guys, can I assume that the performance of the Ka50 makes it ideal for mountain terrain?

 

Absolutely! No competition there.

[GGTharos]

I don't know about the propaganda, but as far as the heli's peformance; it's combat-proven. IIRC the pilots were simply not trained to deal with the more difficult terrain conditions encountered there, and that was that.

The Ka-50 would have been a better platform in terms of flight for such terrain and winds though.

But to say that the apache 'could not do what it was designed to do' is rather incorrect - it has already proven that it bloody well can in other theaters ;)

 

Back in 1999 there were propaganda pamphlets dropped all over Yugoslavia about Apache arrival. You should see some of those … When Apache arrived, with great pomp, it turned out it could not do of what it was designed to do.

 

Don’t get me wrong, I love Apache. It is an excellent helicopter. But, its success in Iraq must be put in perspective. As well as its failure over Yugoslavia.

[Yellonet]

I don't know about the propaganda, but as far as the heli's peformance; it's combat-proven. IIRC the pilots were simply not trained to deal with the more difficult terrain conditions encountered there, and that was that.

That sounds like a lame excuse if I ever heard one.

"- eh... yeah, the boys wasn't trained in this perticular terrain where vertical movement need to be applied to avoid the ground coming in contact with the airframe in an untimely manner...hrrmm.

[GGTharos]

It isn't a lame excuse; there was more to it than 'vertical movement'. The apaches have to work in an environment where their lift is low, and at the same time there are powerful air currents or gusts (typical in mountainous areas). I think you'll find that 'pilot training' in such cases counts for quite a bit.

That's like saying that you not going to war flying a Ka-50 because you haven't mastered its flight, a lame excuse ;) It might be a lame excuse in a game ... but in real life, where real people's lives and real equipment is concerned, it's a pretty darned good *Reason*. Further, the 64's were meant to support some sort of ground attack that didn't materialize, so ... AFAIK ... there was no point in them being there.

[Yellonet]

It isn't a lame excuse; there was more to it than 'vertical movement'. The apaches have to work in an environment where their lift is low, and at the same time there are powerful air currents or gusts (typical in mountainous areas). I think you'll find that 'pilot training' in such cases counts for quite a bit.

That's like saying that you not going to war flying a Ka-50 because you haven't mastered its flight, a lame excuse ;) It might be a lame excuse in a game ... but in real life, where real people's lives and real equipment is concerned, it's a pretty darned good *Reason*. Further, the 64's were meant to support some sort of ground attack that didn't materialize, so ... AFAIK ... there was no point in them being there.

Well, I wasn't entierly serious, but saying you're not trained enough for the mission at hand is a bad excuse because it shouldn't ever be a reason for failure. Sending in untrained (in this case for the special flying circumstances) personal is asking for trouble.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

I don't know about the propaganda, but as far as the heli's peformance; it's combat-proven. IIRC the pilots were simply not trained to deal with the more difficult terrain conditions encountered there, and that was that.

The Ka-50 would have been a better platform in terms of flight for such terrain and winds though.

But to say that the apache 'could not do what it was designed to do' is rather incorrect - it has already proven that it bloody well can in other theaters ;)

How do you know that the issue was pilot training?

[Yellonet]

How do you know that the issue was pilot training?

Indeed, sounds like a bad excuse, you really can't go by any official word because as they say, in war the first casualy is truth.

[GGTharos]

It was mentioned right after the 64's were turned back. And yeah, it is a bad excuse ... bad in the way that someone just decided to ferry some 64's there without proper theatre training for the pilots.

 

Edit: It appears I remembered wrong, or that I misunderstood what 'training' had meant. Here's an interesting writeup on the incident:

 

http://www.afa.org/magazine/feb2002/0202hawk.pdf

 

There's nothing here about lack of capability for the chopper ... but plenty of other problems.

[GGTharos]

And what will you go by? Something you make up yourself? :)

 

Indeed, sounds like a bad excuse, you really can't go by any official word because as they say, in war the first casualy is truth.