aphelion79 Posted July 12, 2008 Author Share Posted July 12, 2008 :D You guys are just goin' at it arn't ya?! lol At any rate, thanks GG for some of the explanations they were quite helpful to understand the environment that Black Shark will take place in! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
S77th-konkussion Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 (edited) The mission for which the Ka-50 is intended implies that the adversary will not be advanced enough or have the resources necessary in order to deploy radar-guided air defenses. Because of that, the aircraft is not equipped with any kind of defense against radar-guided threats. Note that I'm not the first to mention this, I'm just reiterating it here since it seems applicable. I'm not arguing that this is the strategy- but it sure seems a foolhardy strategy on it's face. Ahh well. I guess in a pinch they could just slap one of these on the windshield. Then again- if they are targeted by a fast mover- what are they going to do? Run? Edited July 12, 2008 by S77th-konkussion [sIGPIC]http://forums.eagle.ru/attachment.php?attachmentid=43337&d=1287169113[/sIGPIC] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGTharos Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 They don't fly if there are fast-movers around. The Ka-50 is intended for low-intensity operations. It is not intended for and will NOT be deployed in an actual war. That is the Mi-28's job. [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...
Feuerfalke Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 Don't know why you need to offend me? :huh: You really bent a lot of things I wrote as answers to previous posts or interpreted things into it, to rip them apart. If you want to share your knowledge or correct me, I'd really welcome that, but I doubt you needed to put it like that, to do so. Thanks. Gigabyte GA-Z87-UD3H | i7 4470k @ 4.5 GHz | 16 GB DDR3 @ 2.133 Ghz | GTX 1080 | LG 55" @ 4K | Cougar 1000 W | Creative X-Fi Ti | TIR5 | CH HOTAS (with BU0836X-12 Bit) + Crosswind Pedals | Win10 64 HP | X-Keys Pro 20 & Pro 54 | 2x TM MFD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D-Scythe Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 You really bent a lot of things I wrote as answers to previous posts or interpreted things into it, to rip them apart. IMO, he didn't "bend" anything you wrote. How he read your message was exactly how I read your message, and I replied to your posts in the exact same way. I doubt Rhen was trying to offend you. He's just a busy guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feuerfalke Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 IMO, he didn't "bend" anything you wrote. How he read your message was exactly how I read your message, and I replied to your posts in the exact same way. I doubt Rhen was trying to offend you. He's just a busy guy. I'm really sorry to hear that you share his attitude. He picked up single sentences from discussions and took the parts that suited his point most. I can even accept that, but "Then you're knowledge of airborne fire control radars is inadequate to this discussion." "Perhaps you were in the navy during WW2? :doh:" were not meant to share his knowledge. (besides that, my point was not, that Bennett himself picked up the helo, but that the standing helo was only picked up, when "looking" at the airborne helos. And if you are looking down at a helo, the rotating blades form no slim line as seen from the front or side. They perform a circular or at least elyptical pattern with a diameter of about 20m! This reflection is much larger, by the blades alone, not even speaking about the movement, even further increasing their reflection-size. As this strong reflection also changes constantly due to that rotation, it becomes an unsteady disturbance against the steady ground. It rather takes a good portion of common sense to know that this lock on is much easier to get, than achieving a radar-lock from a SAM-site against a standing helo, just because of the rotor-blades. And my common sense tells me so, not only the few things I know about radar from using them.) Gigabyte GA-Z87-UD3H | i7 4470k @ 4.5 GHz | 16 GB DDR3 @ 2.133 Ghz | GTX 1080 | LG 55" @ 4K | Cougar 1000 W | Creative X-Fi Ti | TIR5 | CH HOTAS (with BU0836X-12 Bit) + Crosswind Pedals | Win10 64 HP | X-Keys Pro 20 & Pro 54 | 2x TM MFD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThunderChief Posted July 12, 2008 Share Posted July 12, 2008 (edited) Could it be that you are talking about two different things? I am sure NO expert about radar butI think Feuerfalke ist talking about continuous wave radar and Rhen about pulse doppler radar? The diffrence would be that the moving of the rotor blades would reduce the RCS of the helo for the CW radar, but contrary is the only way of detecting a hovering helicopter by pulse doppler radar, right? Correct me if i am wrong, but as any motion of the blades would cause a frequency shift and a pulse doppler radar will "see" any refelction close to it's operating frequency, the rotating rotor disc will be dected, as long as the blades will cause any reflection at all. Besides that I think even if not everything what Feuerfalke said was true its not very nice to examine every sentence and making fun of it. Edited July 12, 2008 by ThunderChief Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts