No Radar warning, no radar guidance, no radar SAMs?

[EvilBivol-1]

the list goes on......

They're all wrong.

[danger]

hmmm, i found MANY links that ALL say the same, and by many i mean over 30.but posted only 4 to save space, would you like some more, if so, i will try and get some from the russian military.......

Edited February 5, 2009 by danger

[EvilBivol-1]

Yes, all those links are wrong.

[danger]

Yes, all those links are wrong.

and what makes you so sure ? to say that ALL of any links are wrong there must be a reason for this.

 

how can some 30 independent links to all different sites be wrong ? ( and it is 30)

and i have not even been to wikki either.

[EvilBivol-1]

Because they merely re-post the same wrong information. When you say, "independent," do you mean they all hire independent researches that travel to Russia and interview Russian military representatives?

 

Eagle Dynamics does.

[GGTharos]

What makes EB so certain is that ED gets its information straight from Kamov. Is that clear yet? ;)

[hoorah]

There would be the same Doppler effect as the entire Earth around it so wouldn't it be hard to pick out a stationary helicopter relative to a stationary Earth? It doesn't matter that the jet is flying at the helicopter to cause motion since you need relative motion to pick anything out with Doppler.

 

Here is how doppler was explained to me: You are in a car on a highway, and a set of railroad tracks parallels the street. You are stopped, and a train is coming at you. The first time you hear the horn, its very low. As the train sounds its horn again, it is louder because it is closer. When the train passes you, the horn will get quieter. If you and the train are traveling the same direction and speed, the horn will never sound louder or quieter. The sound is the radar beam. The car and the train are interchangeable, but its the same effect. The train can be stopped and sounding its horn, but as YOU drive closer, the sound changes (louder). You say relative to a stationary earth, do you mean terrain? Is the helo actually on the ground? An extremely slow moving (10kts?) flying extremely low (10 feet)helicopter might escape a simple doppler fire control radar(F-4, Mig 23), but most fighters nowadays have some advances the can distinguish your little helo vs ground clutter. But then we could talk about other radar modes, ground map, or advanced fire controllers etc.

 

And apache punching flares (its UK and an air show, so use that to bash me). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T9rT1BXEReA

 

And this one http://rofasix.blogspot.com/2007/05/about-to-own-night.html

Edited February 6, 2009 by hoorah
spelling

[Groove]

Why should ED, cooperating with Kamov know better than somebody else?

[AlphaOneSix]

And apache punching flares (its UK and an air show, so use that to bash me). <youtube video of U.K. Apache launching flares>

 

And this one <picture of U.S. Army Apache launching flares>

 

Those are both D-models.

[chromium]

and what makes you so sure ? to say that ALL of any links are wrong there must be a reason for this.

 

how can some 30 independent links to all different sites be wrong ? ( and it is 30)

and i have not even been to wikki either.

 

Some of 'em don't talk about LWR. So we must assume that the Hokum does not have it?

[ZaltysZ]

hoorah,

 

Doppler effect was explained to you wrongly. Horn sounds low (in sense of loudness) when train is far and sounds louder when train moves closer because of sound (wave) attenuation and not because of Doppler effect, which is about frequency. When train is far away its horn will have higher pitch (higher frequency) than stationary horn, as it closes the horn will sound lower (in sense of pitch) and will continue to sound lower and lower as train moves away from observer. This is Doppler effect - change in frequency depending on relative movement. Example with trains isn't natural, because of relatively low speed it is hard to notice the changes in pitch. I think jet flyby is better example. As jet approaches it whistles (high pitch) and after flyby when it extends away sound becomes lower (in pitch). If you have ever experienced it (airshow?), then you will understand easily.

 

Doppler radar works by comparing emitted and echoed microwave frequencies. If there is no relative speed between emitter and reflector, there will be no Doppler effect. In case of moving aircraft, whole ground will have relative speed to it (ground speed). Simplified approach for solving ground clutter problem in look down scenario is to filter out anything that is moving towards aircraft at ground speed. It may look that stationary (hovering) helicopter will be filtered out too, however don't forget that helicopter isn't Harrier and has fast moving rotors, which will cause Doppler effect by themselves alone, because blades have relative speed to ground and to approaching aircraft (with radar) too.

Edited February 6, 2009 by ZaltysZ

[danger]

well i looked at Kamov site and found this

 

Self-defence: L150 Pastel RWR in tailcone, at rear of each wingtip EW pod and under nose; total of 512 chaff/ flare cartridges (in four UV-26 dispensers) in each wingtip pod. L-140 Otklik laser detection system; L-136 Mak IR warning.

 

i also found that it used anti air missiles

Igla or R-73 (AA-11 'Archer') AAMs

 

so is Kamov wrong as well then ?

[Groove]

Danger, what did Kamov tell you about the version which is simulated in DCS:BS ?

[danger]

you mean the A version?

[Groove]

Danger, can you point me to the site on Kamov.ru where you found out about the RWR and R-73 infos? Im currently learning russian ( cyrillic ) but its still too low to find the right URL by myself.

 

Is it on this URL ?

 

http://www.kamov.ru/second/50.html

[danger]

and please dont think i am trolling or anything as i am not, i would just like to clear this issue up.

i have a lot of research experience and i am fully aware that items must be checked and counter checked many times over, this is what i do.

 

but i cant see how a combat helo with this much tech onboard would not have RWR installed as RGM's are a common battlefield AA weapon.

[danger]

Danger, can you point me to the site on Kamov.ru where you found out about the RWR and R-73 infos? Im currently learning russian ( cyrillic ) but its still too low to find the right URL by myself.

 

Is it on this URL ?

 

http://www.kamov.ru/second/50.html

 

 

i have already been to that site but did not find much on the ka-50, it just has general info.

i have visited many sites all with slightly different info, but the most creditable was this one

http://www.aviastar.org/helicopters_eng/ka-50.php

[Groove]

well i looked at Kamov site and found this

 

Self-defence: L150 Pastel RWR in tailcone, at rear of each wingtip EW pod and under nose; total of 512 chaff/ flare cartridges (in four UV-26 dispensers) in each wingtip pod. L-140 Otklik laser detection system; L-136 Mak IR warning.

 

i also found that it used anti air missiles

Igla or R-73 (AA-11 'Archer') AAMs

 

so is Kamov wrong as well then ?

 

So you didnt looked at Kamov site.

[danger]

yes i did look at the kamov site, but the avionics section was limited

[Groove]

Ah sorry, so you looked on the official site, but didnt found any infos about RWR or R-73 on it?

 

Your posting made me believe this infos were on the official site.

[danger]

my apologies then chap, i am currently searching some russian sites for more confirmation.........

[danger]

http://warfare.ru/?catid=260&linkid=1631

 

an even more creditable site,

[ZaltysZ]

Regarding creditability,

 

no one site on internet is creditable enough to determine if something about military is true. Some things are classified and some are simply not published on purpose. Even manufacturer's published data should not be taken too seriously, because it is interested in selling its products and represents the data in such way that it might help in advertising. I am not directing this to any particular manufacturer, but in general all of them do this to some extent.

 

Books and journals are not creditable enough too. The problem is cold war traditions, there were such thing as weapon race, when everyone was trying to show that they can make better (and more) weapons than their adversaries. Most books and journals from that era describe military equipment only from good side and lack critics. Of course this depends on who is the author (does he sympathize or not to country the described equipment originated from). Generally, such books tell how something was developed and constantly improved, also full package of optional addons are mentioned in such way that it looks like these addons are base features. This might have not been a fault of author, but the fault of his sources (they might have been giving disinformation, hiding some information and etc., because they were interested in subjectivity of book).

 

Remember, the aim of weapon race is not to MAKE, but to SHOW, how much power you have. You may say that cold war is over, but wait and watch some documentaries on Discovery channel and on some Russian channel and you will that nothing has changed: everyone shows their designs as superior.

[danger]

also, why would an aircraft need chaff dispensers if it had no way of knowing when to deploy the chaff by way of RWR systems? Its all a tad strange that some people dismiss the RWR on the ka-50 when everything points to its being fitted to the aircraft.

[ZaltysZ]

Its all a tad strange that some people dismiss the RWR on the ka-50 when everything points to its being fitted to the aircraft.

 

It is because ED have told that they have modeled Ka-50 using helicopter from batch of Ka-50, which don't have RWR, as reference. They haven't done this by using books and journals, but by working with Kamov. Isn't that enough?

 

Don't question why DCS Ka-50 does not have RWR, because it is answered already. However, why that batch don't have RWRs is still an open question. It might be doctrine thing, maybe fund saving or something else. Read whole thread (and one more with almost similiar topic) for some reasoning. It would be good idea to ask someone in Russian military (like attack helicopter pilot, who flies without RWR) for formal reasoning.