Tigre firing in French Alps

[Friedric]

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2vm98_entrainement-tigre_tech?from=rss

 

Enjoy

 

ps : i want this chopper also ;)

[Kuky]

that video is already deleted

[-akyla-]

that video is already deleted

yup, too bad:cry:

[AlphaOneSix]

Here is the YouTube link:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGDLYQ70HJA

[-akyla-]

Here is the YouTube link:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGDLYQ70HJA

 

THANKS!!

[Mnemonic]

Many thanks! Great video!

[Mugatu]

Nice find. Notice the range of the first cannon shots 1090 meters.

[Kusch]

Thanks! This is Espanian or Australian Tiger?

[Esac_mirmidon]

I think the french ones. In Australia the sky gears is not needed... XD. An in Spain the pilots would be more acurated firing because budget restrictions and angry contributors.....O_O

[Kusch]

I think the french ones. In Australia the sky gears is not needed...

 

LOL this is only for test on mountain ;)

[Allo]

Thanks for sharing.:thumbup:

WoW. The gun seems very inaccurate. I think a fixed gun, like that on the KA-50, would achieve more consistent results of bullets on target.

I think the french ones.

I'm pretty sure Esac is right, sounds like their talking French. Also, there isn't much snow in Australia.

[AlphaOneSix]

The gun seems very inaccurate. I think a fixed gun, like that on the KA-50, would achieve more consistent results of bullets on target.

 

 

First, it's not inaccurate, but I'll let you slide since you don't know much about cannons on helicopters.

 

Second, the gun on the Ka-50 isn't fixed.

[Allo]

First, it's not inaccurate, but I'll let you slide since you don't know much about cannons on helicopters.

Gee. Thanks.:megalol:

So what your saying is he was very accurate and it is expected that some bullets are going to obviously miss the target, especially at that distance.:gun_sniper:

 

Second, the gun on the Ka-50 isn't fixed.

Ok, agreed. Not fixed, but it is a more stable setup/platform than that of the Tiger IMHO.:gun_smilie:

[Kusch]

Australian Tiger firing Hellfire (video and pics):

 

http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2005/Jun/20050602b.cfm

[Esac_mirmidon]

Please AlphaOneSix, could you extend a little about the accuracy of the cannon mounted in helicopters?

 

For me is very interesting to know why in this video " it seems " that the cannon rounds miss so often.

[AlphaOneSix]

So what your saying is he was very accurate and it is expected that some bullets are going to obviously miss the target, especially at that distance.

 

Exactly. Until you get very close, cannons on helicopters have traditionally been terribly inaccurate, just by their nature. The Tiger's gun, from this video, appears to be about as accurate (or rather, inaccurate) as every other chin-mounted cannon. I've seen vids where the cannon on the AH-64 and AH-1 appear to be extremely accurate, but those shots are from a very close range (well within 100m, usually more like 500m). And as you might guess, the gun (like rockets) is an area weapon, and is not expected to be a sniper rifle. For point targets, use a missile.

 

Ok, agreed. Not fixed, but it is a more stable setup/platform than that of the Tiger IMHO.

 

No argument there. But to be honest, I wonder which idea came first...

 

Here is what I mean...

 

 

A) "Hey look, we have this really nice BMP-2 cannon. Works great, easy to build, saves money and design time...Let's put this on the Ka-50." "Okay, but we can't mount it under the chin, way to unstable, plus it messes up our retractable gear design." "Good point, let's put it on the side like the Mi-24...It worked for them, I bet it can work for us, too!"

 

B) "You know, chin-mounted cannons are very inaccurate, and are a real pain to deal with, but the side-mounted cannons on the Mi-24 worked great! We should do that!" "Good idea...hey, we could use the same cannon as the BMP-2!" "Great idea!"

 

 

Personally, I think (A) is the more likely, but of course I have no idea. ;)

[Mugatu]

I'm confused ... those shots are at 1000m and at least a couple of rounds per salvo hit the target (which is very small) I'd say that's pretty accurate.

 

Even the "quoted figures" of the Ka-50 would be getting similar performance at that range:

 

2-4 mrads, roughly +- 1 or 2 meters.

 

Also given the UK's Apache experience in Afghanistan I wouldn't under estimate the usefulness of a chin mounted turret.

 

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/afghan-field-report-british-wah-64ds-04289/#more

[Avimimus]

There is third possibility: That both ideas coalesced simultaneously in the head of technician and he drew a sketch of a small, 2A42 armed helicopter and then looked at it and said "good idea, lets take it to the boss". And a Forth one that know one thought of it and it just happened...

[mvsgas]

I was always under the assumption that all aircraft guns ( Helicopters, Fighters or attack aircraft) where design with a spread pattern ( Shotgun effect) Not sure the reasoning but I believe and been told by some people that it help increase the probability of a hit at long distances and the relative short time a pilot or gunner might have to aim the weapon and fire. Any thoughts?

[RedTiger]

Thanks for sharing.:thumbup:

WoW. The gun seems very inaccurate. I think a fixed gun, like that on the KA-50, would achieve more consistent results of bullets on target.

 

I'm pretty sure Esac is right, sounds like their talking French. Also, there isn't much snow in Australia.

 

There's a thread about the gun placement on the Ka-50 on this forum, probably dropped off to page 2 or 3. I believe that someone there mentioned that the gun is not supposed to have pinpoint accuracy from far away. Its supposed to fire in a spread pattern.

[RedTiger]

I was always under the assumption that all aircraft guns ( Helicopters, Fighters or attack aircraft) where design with a spread pattern ( Shotgun effect) Not sure the reasoning but I believe and been told by some people that it help increase the probability of a hit at long distances and the relative short time a pilot or gunner might have to aim the weapon and fire. Any thoughts?

 

I'm pretty sure the M61, as mounted on the F-16 for example, has built-in round dispersement.

[Weta43]

It's deja vue all over again... Just like going back to the good old days at forum.lockon.ru & the Cobra discussions

 

Sure the Russians have accurate cannons, but accurate cannons - "who needs em ?"

[AlphaOneSix]

No helicopter-mounted cannon I've ever seen has had any kind of purposeful dispersion built in. This includes the AH-64, AH-1, and OH-58. In all cases, the dispersion just comes "naturally" because of recoil, atmospheric conditions, etc.

[arneh]

A) "Hey look, we have this really nice BMP-2 cannon. Works great, easy to build, saves money and design time...Let's put this on the Ka-50." "Okay, but we can't mount it under the chin, way to unstable, plus it messes up our retractable gear design." "Good point, let's put it on the side like the Mi-24...It worked for them, I bet it can work for us, too!"

 

Personally, I think (A) is the more likely, but of course I have no idea. ;)

 

 

I agree that this does some more likely. Although the they might have got the message from above that they were to use the BMP-2 cannon. Considering that the Mi-28 uses the same cannon, and the two aircraft were originally in a fly-off competition, it might have been specified something like "we want an attack helicopter, and it's going to be armed with this cannon".

 

Just a guess. They might have independently figured out that it was a nifty weapon to use. Or one team tried it first and the other thought "hmm, that's a nice idea, let's try the same cannon on our helicopter, but we'll mount it smarter then them" (and now you can argue over who thought they were smarter than the other :) ).

[Weta43]

There was an article linked from another thread discussing this question that was a history of the development of the Ka-50, & it stated in that, that the main reason for mounting the gun where it is, was that this allowed it to be attached to a rigid structural member that could take the recoil of the cannon without having to make the whole front half of the aircraft stiff enough to carry such a powerful a weapon (thereby saving weight & room).

 

As it turned out it has advantages - which were undoubtedly foreseen by the developers & reckoned a fair swap for the loss of range of movement.