Force_Feedback Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Seriousely, comparing helicopter armor to attack plane armor, and comparing that to tank armor, is like comparing paper airplanes with model gliders and 1/5th scale model jets, they all fly, but that's all they have in common. Actually, the Ka-50 has very good armoring for a chopper, can't beat the titanium tub on the A-10, but aluminium is still better than aramids. Tanks hoever have 1200mm equivalent of armor, while the A-10 has like an inch of titanium, and the Ka-50 350 (something with 300) kg of aluminium. Which is barely a centimeter of armor. But yet again, better than some kevlar and armored seats. But heck, the Apache has HMDs, so who needs armor, or parachutes, or flares (US ones) :P I have this sick fantasy, what if an antitank round hits the rotor mast... Creedence Clearwater Revival:worthy: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britgliderpilot Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 I have this sick fantasy, what if an antitank round hits the rotor mast... ;) :D http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker15 Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 "This is ground radar, enemy A-10 approaching your position" "Roger arming A2A missile" "Negative you don't have any A2A missiles" "What! why not" "ED can't decide whether or not you can have them" "Damn you ED:ranting:" (Explodes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMFA117_Poko Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 There won't be any R-73 nor Igla-V? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
britgliderpilot Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 There won't be any R-73 nor Igla-V? No there won't - not for the Ka-50, anyway. This has been discussed before . . . . . it's because there is precisely no information on such a subject. ED aren't in the business of making stuff up, they simulate real systems. For the record, A2A missiles wouldn't improve your chances much, and at the cost of two pylons of A2G pylons to boot. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v121/britgliderpilot/BS2Britgliderpilot-1.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VMFA117_Poko Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Understood clearly. That's good 'cuz it was tricky question. I found only info about A2A missiles on Ka52 - not Ka50 :D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvsgas Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 This argument again? Guys No matter how many photos you have seen or web sites you have read, it will never happen. Unless you fly a combat helicopter IRL and got photos and videos to prove a helicopter can carry and employ a live A2A missile (not one with orange colored parts or blue band around it, I'm talking yellow and brown bands around it indicating live explosives and live rocket motor in combat not some test flight.)it will never happen. Helicopter will never carry A2A weapons in combat. It does not make economical since nor tactical since. Why would a country spend money acquiring an A2A missile, transporting it to a helicopter base when it could be taken to a fighter base. Spend money maintaining it and protecting it from enemies to put it in an a helicopter that has a small chance of actually employing that weapon when you can put it on a fighter type aircraft with 9 times more chances to use it or employ that missile in comparison to a helicopter? Why waste the missile? It cost a lot of money, why waste it? Keep in mine you also have to use fuel and man power to train that helicopter pilot and keep him current on that training. We are talking millions to keep helicopter pilots current on A2A weapons, Why? To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkan Aidaho Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Yes. You can't hide from doppler radar. Period. You could be landed, but if your rotor's turning you'll be showing up on an A2A radar scope. N/A DCS at this time. Hmm.. This must be discussed. First - i dont think that this kind of detection is possible for Ka-50, because it have a composite blades, not the metal one like the older heli. Of course there is another moving metal parts (кто поможет перевести "втулка и автомат перекоса"?) but this is not compareable with fully metal rotor. Second - РЛЭ МиГ-29 clearly says, that any target, which speed is less than 200km/h will be filtered and wont be shown on radar screen. Dont really know how US radars deals with low speed targets but i think same filter added. So i dont believe that You could be landed, but if your rotor's turning you'll be showing up on an A2A radar scope. Can you quote some part of flight manual of any west fighter, which directly says that it is possible? Open your eyes, open yor mind... ©Guano Apes Sorry for my bad english. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
504Goon Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 The Mig-29 has huge problems with slow closure targets, so i believe it would struggle seeing a chopper. On the other hand, F-15 has been able to detect a truck, and shoot it with a sparrow. So the notch gate for it is nowhere near of the 29A.. Speak about traffic control..:) 504th CO http://www.vvs504.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkan Aidaho Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 The Mig-29 has huge problems with slow closure targets, so i believe it would struggle seeing a chopper. On the other hand, F-15 has been able to detect a truck, and shoot it with a sparrow. So the notch gate for it is nowhere near of the 29A.. This was a joke? Open your eyes, open yor mind... ©Guano Apes Sorry for my bad english. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
504Goon Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Nope, i don't know how to make any of those. 504th CO http://www.vvs504.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaOneSix Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Helicopter will never carry A2A weapons in combat. OH-58Cs carried live ATAS (Air-To-Air Stinger) missiles on combat missions during Desert Storm. I helped load them. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkan Aidaho Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 How can fighter attack truck with sparrow? Open your eyes, open yor mind... ©Guano Apes Sorry for my bad english. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
504Goon Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 If the trucks closure goes above the set limit, it will appear as contact on the doppler radar. 504th CO http://www.vvs504.co.uk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dvst Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 This argument again? Guys No matter how many photos you have seen or web sites you have read, it will never happen. Unless you fly a combat helicopter IRL and got photos and videos to prove a helicopter can carry and employ a live A2A missile (not one with orange colored parts or blue band around it, I'm talking yellow and brown bands around it indicating live explosives and live rocket motor in combat not some test flight.)it will never happen. Helicopter will never carry A2A weapons in combat. It does not make economical since nor tactical since. Why would a country spend money acquiring an A2A missile, transporting it to a helicopter base when it could be taken to a fighter base. Spend money maintaining it and protecting it from enemies to put it in an a helicopter that has a small chance of actually employing that weapon when you can put it on a fighter type aircraft with 9 times more chances to use it or employ that missile in comparison to a helicopter? Why waste the missile? It cost a lot of money, why waste it? Keep in mine you also have to use fuel and man power to train that helicopter pilot and keep him current on that training. We are talking millions to keep helicopter pilots current on A2A weapons, Why? The UHT carries 4 Stingers in it's default config. Main thought behind it beeing the intended escort role in wich it would defend transport Helos against both enemy AAA and other gunships - not Fixed Wings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkan Aidaho Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Back to MiG-29 The filtering active only in BVR scan mode. If the target already locked it can do whatever it wants, but in range less then 15 km the lock wont brake. This means that locked target can reduce speed but it wont help anyway. Open your eyes, open yor mind... ©Guano Apes Sorry for my bad english. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkan Aidaho Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 If the trucks closure goes above the set limit, it will appear as contact on the doppler radar. Tell me that you not joking. There is no way that AIM-7 seeker lock a truck. This is nonsense. Open your eyes, open yor mind... ©Guano Apes Sorry for my bad english. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mvsgas Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 OH-58Cs carried live ATAS (Air-To-Air Stinger) missiles on combat missions during Desert Storm. I helped load them. Ok sir, I know you work them and I don't so if you say they do they do. I just have never seen them. To me it would not make since , as a commander, to send a set amount of, lets say, AIM-9 (first missile came to mind) to a helicopter base when I can get them to a F-16 base and have more chances of the missiles hitting and destroying an enemy aircraft. They the tube ever come back empty? Did they fire any of them? To whom it may concern, I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that. Thank you for you patience. Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 While I don't have this publication on hand, I have already sent it to ED: An F-15E detected a Mi-8 in A2A mode while the Mi-8 was still on the ground, it's rotor spinning. The Mi-8 was tracked on the A2A radar and because it was landed, they slaved the FLIR pod to the radar and attacked with a GBU once closer. This happened in one of the gulf wars, and the detection was made from 50nm. Second, there was the blackhawk friendly fire incident. Both H-60's were flying low, one was hit by AMRAAM, the other by Sidewinder, detection was made from some 40nm in very mountainous terrain. Western fighters have a pretty tight notch - the F-15's tightest setting is 47kts, and this is visible on one of the knobs in the cockpit. The MiG-29's radar is a piece of junk when it comes to search. It is -so- far behind the F-15 radar in capability in this respact it's not even funny. Lastly, the rotor blades spin fast enough that they always break out of the filter. Hmm.. This must be discussed. First - i dont think that this kind of detection is possible for Ka-50, because it have a composite blades, not the metal one like the older heli. Of course there is another moving metal parts (кто поможет перевести "втулка и автомат перекоса"?) but this is not compareable with fully metal rotor. Second - РЛЭ МиГ-29 clearly says, that any target, which speed is less than 200km/h will be filtered and wont be shown on radar screen. Dont really know how US radars deals with low speed targets but i think same filter added. So i dont believe that Can you quote some part of flight manual of any west fighter, which directly says that it is possible? [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Why? All the target has to do is exceed the notch gate. There's nothing magical about tracking a ground-bound target with an A2A weapon if that target is moving fast enough ... plus the missile will probably have -some- sort of protection built in against losing a target in clutter and in the notch. All the missile needs is a radar reflection (possibly a narrow spectrum one, thus eliminating much of the bckground) and a doppler shift (so if that truck was going fast enough) and potentially a 'snap down' attack feature to protect the fuze from triggering against the ground. There is also an incident where 2 F-15's attacked a pair of Iraqi MiG-25's just as those 25's were touching down. The AIM-7's did not score direct hits bu they hit close enough to cause damage. Tell me that you not joking. There is no way that AIM-7 seeker lock a truck. This is nonsense. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arneh Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 While I don't have this publication on hand, I have already sent it to ED: An F-15E detected a Mi-8 in A2A mode while the Mi-8 was still on the ground, it's rotor spinning. This incident is described in the book "Strike Eagle", and it was in Desert Storm. And looking it up now, yes, the book does say they used air-air radar to lock up the the helicopter while it was on the ground. I can quote the relevant section if you like. The Mi-8 was tracked on the A2A radar and because it was landed, they slaved the FLIR pod to the radar and attacked with a GBU once closer. Actually it took off just after they launched the GBU. But it still hit. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlphaOneSix Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 They the tube ever come back empty? Did they fire any of them? Of course they didn't fire any. It wasn't exactly a target rich environment during Desert Storm. Of course, we didn't know it would be so easy to gain air superiority, or we wouldn't have bother with the Stingers. On another note, one of the pilots that I'm working with right now has done fairly extensive training with Stingers on the AH-64D Longbow Apache, but they are certainly not mounted in combat at this time as there is no threat. Keep in mind that these are Stingers we're talking about, not Sidewinders. No U.S. Air Force aircraft mounts Stingers. Other than "proof of concept" for USMC aircraft, I've never seen a helicopter fire a Sidewinder. So the argument that you're taking ordnance away from someone who could make better us of it is invalid. U.S. Army doctrine is pretty clear that A2A combat is something to be avoided if at all possible. Stingers are meant as a defensive weapon against other helicopters, and are certainly not meant to be used offensively against fast movers. It's also widely understood that the use of helicopters in an environment where your side does not have air superiority is not a very wise move. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 USMC does use sidewinders operationally on some of its AH-1's, IIRC, but it's more of an exception to the rule. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 Please do :) This incident is described in the book "Strike Eagle", and it was in Desert Storm. And looking it up now, yes, the book does say they used air-air radar to lock up the the helicopter while it was on the ground. I can quote the relevant section if you like. Yup, I forgot to mention that. :) Actually it took off just after they launched the GBU. But it still hit. [sIGPIC][/sIGPIC] Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunkan Aidaho Posted February 3, 2008 Share Posted February 3, 2008 The MiG-29's radar is a piece of junk when it comes to search. It is -so- far behind the F-15 radar in capability in this respact it's not even funny. Sorry, but I never said that MiG-29 radar is better then F-15's one. I just mentioned two things: there is filtering in BVR mode and that on short WVR distances MIG's radar has no limitation at all then tracking target. So why you guys start offend little MiGgy? Lastly, the rotor blades spin fast enough that they always break out of the filter. Following your logic you will see a target on screen with subsonic speed, wich will be moveless instead :) Of course filtering is used for the real target speed. Than I mentioned about filtering in BVR do and what a MiG's radar real perfomance is, I was trying to set you on the right track. Filtering was used in BVR not because MiG is a piece of crap/junk, I believe that there was other reasons. Why? All the target has to do is exceed the notch gate. There's nothing magical about tracking a ground-bound target with an A2A weapon if that target is moving fast enough ... Tracking lamborgini - ok, may be yes, shooting - no. You probably wont even get permission to launch, because rocket seeker not able to get stable lock. The land itself is one of the best ECM ever made, especially for non-active seekers. Actually SARH missiles have very poor effectiveness at very low altitudes, thats why you need to use heat-seeking missiles. The radio proximity fuse will blow up AIM-7 if it comes close by wires/ground. It wont score direct hit anyway. Open your eyes, open yor mind... ©Guano Apes Sorry for my bad english. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts