Gun on the Shark?

[mvsgas]

Well,

 

Being that it still seems up in the air about the Gun on the KA-50, have we forgot anything?

 

I mean A-10 flyers Know how nice it feels too kill any form of AAA on a nice dive run.

 

How would the KA-50 be compared 2 the A-10 in SEAD?

 

Can we even compare the guns?

GAU-8A is a 7 barrell, hydraulicaly operated gun with 4000 to 6000 r/min. The 2A42 is a single barrell, gas operated gun with 300 to 600 r/min.

They are both 30 mm but, how comperable is the ammo? Big part of this whole theme. Which one has more gun powder/ propelent? How heavy is the bulets themselfs? How many bulets can the 2A42 put on target with a one sec burst compare to the GAU-8A? Can we realy compare guns with a 90 rounds differense in one second burst? Like GG said, I doubt ether aircraft would do SEAD and If they did, I doubt ether aicraft would go against AAA with the gun as the prefer weapon. And the A-10 gun can not pivot like the AH-64 :smartass: I though that was your main argument for how bad the KA-50 gun was:D

When the developers of the Black Shark were drawing up the prints for the KA-50 what was the logic in setting the gun on one side of the KA-50?

 

We all know how fluid and unpredictable combat is so why is the the gun limited to only a specific side of the KA-50?

 

Example: Your in your KA-50 shooting a target some where off to the right of you. Then all of the sudden AAA comes up from the ground 1/2 mile to your left side. If the KA-50s gun could move all the way to the left you could target the AAA site, but instead you need to take time to move the KA-50 into a fireing soulution, which might be too late.

 

Im at a loss with the logic and placement of the KA-50s' foward gun placement.

 

:helpsmilie:

 

P.S.

http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jah/jah_0124.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GAU-8_Avenger

http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2008gun_missile/6337GimmyKirk.pdf

Edited September 22, 2008 by mvsgas

[crazysundog]

"The new helicopter's cannon 'borrowed' from ground combat vehicles features

a very high degree of precision as well as excellent ballistic

characteristics. It is very efficient against regular targets including

against armoured targets as well. Mounting the cannon in the centre of

gravity ensured a negligible sideways deflection when firing. Sure, for us

to perform more effective air-to-air engagement, it would be great to have

greater rotation and elevation angles of the cannon, but this could be

achieved via mounting a lesser-recoil cannon."

[crazysundog]

In 1997, Israeli Air Industries (IAI) in cooperation with the Kamov bureau entered a Turkish design competition for a $4 billion contract for 145 (later changed to 50) combat helicopters. The helicopter designed for the competition became the Ka-50-2 Erdogan, a tandem cockpit twin-seater variant of the Ka-50 that featured a modern, Israeli-made "glass cockpit" avionics and a turret-mounted side-folding (for landing clearance) 30mm cannon as opposed to the fixed cannon of the Ka-50. (A similar Italian turret is also offered as a modification to the Ka-50.) The Erdogan beat the Eurocopter and Apache helicopters, but lost to an improved version of AH-1 Cobra. At the end the contract went to the Italian A-129 Mangusta.[2] Kamov is still looking for a buyer, since the Russian military does not have the funding to purchase it themselves.

[crazysundog]

The aircraft carries a substantial load of weapons in four external hardpoints under the stub wings plus two on the wingtips, a total of some 2,300 kg depending on the mix.

"The main armament are the twelve laser-guided Vikhr anti-tank missiles with a maximum range of some 8 km. The laser guidance is reported to be virtually jam-proof and the system features automatic guidance to target enabling evasive movement immediately after missile launch. The fire control system automatically shares all target information among the four Black Sharks of a typical flight in real time, allowing one helicopter to engage a target spotted by another, and the system also can input target information from ground-based forward scouts with man-portable target designation gear. The integrated 30mm cannon is semi-rigidly fixed on the helicopter's side, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The aircraft's agility allows the weapon control system to turn (the entire helicopter and) the cannon at the target acquired in the pilot's helmet sight about as fast as the cannon turret of the Apache or the Mi-28 turns. The semi-rigid mounting improves the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges than with a free-turning turret mount."

[sobek]

Posting the link might have been favorable to copying the whole article, which by itself is no valid source of information as there is hardly any quotations. For example, the capabilities of the Vikhr sound a bit exaggerated to me.

[arneh]

GAU-8A is a 7 barrell, hydraulicaly operated gun with 4000 to 6000 r/min.

 

The GAU-8 has a fire rate of 3900 rds/min. It used to be selectable between 2100 or 4200 rds/min, but now it only uses a fixed setting of 3900 rds/min. Still a lot of rounds of course, but not quite 6000 :)

 

They are both 30 mm but, how comperable is the ammo? Big part of this whole theme. Which one has more gun powder/ propelent? How heavy is the bulets themselfs?

 

Projectile weight is about the same (and both much heavier than the Apache's rounds), but the 2A42 has slightly lower muzzle velocity.

 

How many bulets can the 2A42 put on target with a one sec burst compare to the GAU-8A?

 

There the GAU-8 wins big :)

 

The Russians do however have something comparable in firepower to the GAU-8, the Su-25 and Mi-24P's double-barrel GSh-30-2 fires about 3000 rds/min :)

 

And several other aircraft, including the Ka-50 can carry UPK-23 gun pods. It's only 23 mm, but each pod fires about 3500 rds/min, so with four pods that's about 14000 rds/min, or well over 200 per second. That's some serious firepower :)

Edited September 22, 2008 by arneh

[nscode]

Depending on conditions, the Ka-50 may actually put more rounds on target than the A-10. ;)

[159th_Viper]

To those in the know - Is the Ka-50 able to carry the SPPU-6 Gunpod?

 

Right there with the the Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-23 you have 10 000 r/min at a muzzle velocity of 715m/s - now that's some serious Firepower :)

[crazysundog]

When the developers of the Black Shark were drawing up the prints for the KA-50 what was the logic in setting the gun on one side of the KA-50?

 

We all know how fluid and unpredictable combat is so why is the the gun limited to only a specific side of the KA-50?

 

Example: Your in your KA-50 shooting a target some where off to the right of you. Then all of the sudden AAA comes up from the ground 1/2 mile to your left side. If the KA-50s gun could move all the way to the left you could target the AAA site, but instead you need to take time to move the KA-50 into a fireing soulution, which might be too late.

 

Im at a loss with the logic and placement of the KA-50s' foward gun placement.

 

:helpsmilie:

 

I searched 'development of the ka-50' on google and had all the information you seek in a matter of milliseconds. Plus some new stuff I hadn't read......"The integrated 30mm cannon is semi-rigidly fixed on the helicopter's side, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The aircraft's agility allows the weapon control system to turn (the entire helicopter and) the cannon at the target acquired in the pilot's helmet sight about as fast as the cannon turret of the Apache or the Mi-28 turns. The semi-rigid mounting improves the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges than with a free-turning turret mount."...

 

http://www.military.cz/russia/air/helicopters/Ka-50/ka50_en.htm

 

I think 'cost efficiency' is the main reason for the designers 'logic'.

 

Hi,

 

Sure the KA-50s profile is a good factor, but how much time will it take to move the KA-50 into a fireing solution, compared to if the KA-50s' gun could move all the way to the target.

 

As we play the game im sure we will have further insight on this issue.

 

http://www.aeronautics.ru/nws001/news013.htm

 

http://www.military.cz/russia/air/helicopters/Ka-50/ka50_en.htm (there are two small vids at the bottom of page!)

 

Posting the link might have been favorable to copying the whole article, which by itself is no valid source of information as there is hardly any quotations. For example, the capabilities of the Vikhr sound a bit exaggerated to me.

 

My apologies Sobek, found some interesting info last night, then ran out of free time!!

 

In response to Cool_T; I think there is enough information here to satisfy your question as to the placement of the cannon on the Black Shark. Affordability, availability, and the fact that the BlackShark turns quicker towards the target (offering a smaller target) due to having no tail rotor to slow it down. However, there are others that share your opinion that it should have a better articulated weapon: enter the Ka-50-2 Erdogan. http://www.military.cz/russia/air/helicopters/ka-50-2/ka-50-2.htm

Edited September 22, 2008 by crazysundog

[cool_t]

Very nice links, thanks for the information!

 

:joystick:

[Avimimus]

To those in the know - Is the Ka-50 able to carry the SPPU-6 Gunpod?

 

Right there with the the Gryazev-Shipunov GSh-6-23 you have 10 000 r/min at a muzzle velocity of 715m/s - now that's some serious Firepower :)

 

I don't think so. I've only ever seen references to the SPPU-6 being mounted on the Su-24 (and I wouldn't be surprised if it has specialised avionics requirements). The SPPU-22 has been used on the Su-25, Su-17 and Mig-27. The new SPPU is largely unknown. The SPPU series pods are really for suppressing targets from a high-speed platform - there is no reason to carry the extra weight in a helicopter. The unpopular GUV-8700 helicopter pods are far more likely.

 

In any case, in terms of dimensions & weight for a given muzzle velocity/rate of fire/caliber Soviet aircraft guns have a clear lead on the NATO equivalents. Compare the Gsh-6-23 with the M61 for instance (and then realise that the M61 weighs as much as two Gsh-301...)

[Peyoteros]

Ka-50 have a gun?

 

:shocking:

 

No way, can anyone tell me about it please...

(please do tell me everything)

[sobek]

Ka-50 have a gun?

 

:shocking:

 

No way, can anyone tell me about it please...

(please do tell me everything)

 

Why do you keep on reading this thread if you find it THAT uninteresting? ;)

[swepain]

Ka-50 have a gun?

 

:shocking:

 

No way, can anyone tell me about it please...

(please do tell me everything)

 

Ok son .. ill try...

It has a BIG gun that fires MANY bullets that goes a LONG way and kills LOTS of stuff! :smartass:

[Renato71]

You are (mostly) taking the wrong approach to this subject. Everybody is thinking in the line of fully movable cannon, as on Apache, being made almost fixed.

 

Ka-50 is more like Su-25T then Apache or Mi-28. Therefore, movable cannon on Ka-50 is an extra, not a downgrade of any sort. On later models of Mi-24, a fixed cannon replaced machine gun in nose. Machine gun just did not give enough punch. Fixed cannon was more effective, despite the additional workload on the pilot.

 

Cannon on Ka-50 is a development of that concept, not usual approach. Cannon, as was on later Mi-24, was made slightly movable, and an aiming aid was introduced. Much in the same way Russians are developing cannon pods that can be moved both in elevation and in traversal.

[Peyoteros]

Why do you keep on reading this thread if you find it THAT uninteresting? ;)

 

I'm not reading, I'm just posting here. At this point thread is already beyond "about nothing", so I conclude that it must be about amount of posts purely or something else, anything but Ka-50 gun... :huh:

[-sulan-]

I'm not reading, I'm just posting here. At this point thread is already beyond "about nothing", so I conclude that it must be about amount of posts purely or something else, anything but Ka-50 gun... :huh:

 

The recent posts about gunpods were interesting I think, and were not about nothing.

You should just stop posting if it's not interesting to you, your post before the post to which I'm answering can only be considered trolling.

[Peyoteros]

The recent posts about gunpods were interesting I think, and were not about nothing.

You should just stop posting if it's not interesting to you, your post before the post to which I'm answering can only be considered trolling.

 

Forgive me Your Majesty...

[swepain]

The recent posts about gunpods were interesting I think, and were not about nothing.

You should just stop posting if it's not interesting to you, your post before the post to which I'm answering can only be considered trolling.

 

geez... his post on the post of the post b4 was a post about the gun! atleast i got that! :book:

[-sulan-]

Forgive me Your Majesty...

 

You are forgiven!! :police:

[Avimimus]

You are (mostly) taking the wrong approach to this subject. Everybody is thinking in the line of fully movable cannon, as on Apache, being made almost fixed.

 

Ka-50 is more like Su-25T then Apache or Mi-28. Therefore, movable cannon on Ka-50 is an extra, not a downgrade of any sort. On later models of Mi-24, a fixed cannon replaced machine gun in nose. Machine gun just did not give enough punch. Fixed cannon was more effective, despite the additional workload on the pilot.

 

Cannon on Ka-50 is a development of that concept, not usual approach. Cannon, as was on later Mi-24, was made slightly movable, and an aiming aid was introduced. Much in the same way Russians are developing cannon pods that can be moved both in elevation and in traversal.

 

Astute observation. I hadn't thought of it that way.

 

(Although the depressible cannon for fixed wing aircraft in Russian design philosophy far predates experience with helicopters. See: http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/RAM/pe-2sh.html , http://www.ctrl-c.liu.se/misc/ram/tskb-18.html)

[leafer]

I've been away a while and I know this thread is kinda old. I can't read all the post here so this may have been brought up before, but if not, here are links to recoilless technology.

 

http://www.gizmag.com/go/6590/

 

http://www.rticl.com/

[cool_t]

I've been away a while and I know this thread is kinda old. I can't read all the post here so this may have been brought up before, but if not, here are links to recoilless technology.

 

http://www.gizmag.com/go/6590/

 

http://www.rticl.com/

 

+ 1

 

:thumbup: