Ka-50´s flaws (I think)

[EtherealN]

When you say automated countermeasures are you just talking aout the sequencing that you can program? Cause Ive never seen my heli dispense flares automatically when I have a IR threat light up or missle launch warning.

 

He is talking about the Apache having automated countermeasures, it looks like, not the Ka-50. ;)

[ZaltysZ]

As I said, unguided rockets are important suppression weapons when used side by side with ATGMs.

 

Suppression effects on armor can be:

-Discouraging disembarking of mechanized infantry (which can be equipped with weapons up to ATGM and MANPADS).

-Forcing armor crews to button up (turn in and close hatches), which in turn means:

-Many top mounted weapons such as heavy AA-MGs or ATGM can not be used (especially in older vehicles).

-Reduced situation awareness, which makes the armor prone to flanking attacks be ATGM.

 

Unfortunately, this important effects are not yet modeled in DCS.

 

Yes, but from hover? :) I don't have anything against unguided rockets. They are useful and cheap. However, their usage in hover, seems strange to me, hence the example with ramming stone.

Edited November 28, 2009 by ZaltysZ

[26-J39]

Pitching up in a hover in order to loft you rockets is less precise than the FCC adjusting launcher elevation, unless you are a really Sierra Hotel pilot. And even then your chopper will fly backwards while using the track-shoot-track technique. This is like saying that you can point the cannon in the Ka-50 manually with the same precision as the FCC.

 

Ofcourse, i never recommended to "pitch up on rocket fire" to anyone..

[Martillo1]

Yes, but from hover? :)

 

It eliminates the need for attack run to fire the rockets. Just wait for the order and fire. Timing is easier in coordinated attacks.

 

Anyway, tilting makes firing easier; it is always simpler to control one dimension than two.

[ZaltysZ]

It eliminates the need for attack run to fire the rockets. Just wait for the order and fire.

 

But can you be sure that MANPAD team is not running towards you in the bushes for perfect launch while you are not doing your attack runs? :)

 

P.S: I am not talking about game.

[26-J39]

But can you be sure that MANPAD team is not running towards you in the bushes for perfect launch while you are not doing your attack runs? :)

 

P.S: I am not talking about game.

 

Dude... hate to burst the bubble but this is about a simulator ;)

[ZaltysZ]

Dude... hate to burst the bubble but this is about a simulator ;)

 

Dude, this thread is about flaws of Ka-50. Just because some of you added some tips, it does not mean that it became just about simulator.

[Martillo1]

But can you be sure that MANPAD team is not running towards you in the bushes for perfect launch while you are not doing your attack runs? :)

 

P.S: I am not talking about game.

Yeah, so while you are fliying sideways to avoid them, it is easier to keep your nose pointing to the target and the pipper on target adjusting yaw, while the tilt mechanism takes care of the needed "pitch" angle for the rocket launcher :D

[drhow]

Now this may be following a tangent and I don't know how much of this is modeled in DCS, but theoretically firing rockets from a hover adds a large margin of error. Take a look at http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/1-140/CH4.HTM#3

 

"Firing rockets at a forward airspeed above ETL provides a favorable relative wind, which helps to counteract thrust misalignment. When a rocket is fired from a hovering helicopter, the favorable relative wind is replaced by an unfavorable and turbulent wind caused by rotor downwash. This unfavorable relative wind results in a maximum thrust misalignment and a larger dispersion of rockets."

 

Anyone know if these effects are present in the game?

[EvilBivol-1]

AFAIK, rocket employment from a hover is not a favored practice mainly due to the risk of engine failure from the ingestion of hot exhaust gases while running the engines in the high power settings required to maintain the hover. Remember the recent Mi-28N crash?

 

Also want to point out that the Ka-50 as modeled in DCS: Black Shark actually does resemble the production variant of the few airframes adopted for operational use. It's true, there are only a few such airframes and most of them differ to a greater or lesser degree, but in general what you see in DCS is on level to what is currently in service.

 

As I've pointed out a few times before, my own opinion is that the Ka-50 was quite a visionary project in its time (early 1980s), but it would require significantly more development before it could achieve its full potential. It never recieved this opportunity after the USSR collapsed. Some advanced modifications were pursued by Kamov, but they had no practical support from the military until the two-seat Ka-52. Still, relative to its time and place, it is equipped with a number of unique and advanced solutions that make it a very interesting and capable weapons delivery platform. Obviously, it would benefit greatly from a good FLIR sensor, an advanced helmet-mounted sight and more autonomous ATGM options. Unfortunately, these technologies are only now being developed in Russia and its possible some of them may actually be fitted to the few Ka-50s in operational service.

Edited November 28, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[Feuerfalke]

I also think that the Ka-50 had great potential. The coax-rotors and sturdy construction have proved valuable despite original doubts. Also the general design is cost-efficient and durable.

 

That it is not as capable as modern helicopters is simply due to the facts EB posted: It's development was stopped before it really started.

 

It is still a nice chopper and fun to fly - well, at least IMHO.

 

 

I got to disagree on the tactics with FFARs, though. At least on the Apache these are mounted on vertical adjustable racks to compensate for range while in a hover. Also most videos I've seen so far from training exercises and employment against unknown threats usually happened with FFARs fired from a hover.

It doesn't mean it's always employed like this, though. In battlefields like Iran and Afghanistan the threat-situation is much different.Accordingly you can see a lot more FFARs being fired while flying towards the target, most often while the gunner attacks the same or near targets with the gun.

[EvilBivol-1]

I'm sure AlphaOneSix can provide better info here, but notice the rocket pods are normally stored on the outer stations on the Apache. I believe at least one of the reasons for this is an attempt to maximally distance the rockets' plume from the engine intakes. On the Ka-50 and all other Russian attack helicopters, the rockets are normally stationed on the inner pylons, which increases the risk significantly (AFAIK).

 

In fact, this makes me wonder - is there any footage of AH-64s firing rockets from the inside pylons while hovering?

Edited November 29, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[26-J39]

Sure is, link in post#43...

[Feuerfalke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iKZivg-rf0

 

Note picture at 1:02.

[EvilBivol-1]

Ah, thank you. It's still my understanding that Russian helicopter pilots do not normally, if ever, employ rockets from a hover due to the risk of an engine failure.

Edited November 29, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[Martillo1]

Well, I accept that since there is no tilt for rocket launchers IRL, it is not modeled in game. But there are helicopters, like the Apache, that have such device, so I think it is useful and has some advantages. I do not see why there is interest in negating that fact.

[Hunt3r.j2]

The ideal combat helicopter for attack?

 

Coaxial rotors, FBW, Compound design (pusher prop in tail?), longer wings to have a total of 6 hardpoints, and two wingtip stations for SHORAD in a pinch. 2A42, two pilots. Titanium bathtub. Two turbines, 2,500 shp, secondary APU with 850 shp, to be used in hot and high conditions. Make it able to take 30mm, but not too much.

 

Avionics that would reduce workload, ie after switching on APU or ground power, you would just flick a switch, and everything automatically starts up. Targeting would be accomplished by pushing a lock button, and it would automatically lock onto the target. Then just select weapon, arm, and fire. MMW radar

 

Autopilots that allow you to hold hover, provide more effective assistance. Trim would work much like the BS.

 

The idea is to make it fast, armed to the gills, armored to the gills, much of the work done automatically, and in general, allowing pilots and co-pilot/gunners to focus on the mission instead of flying the aircraft.

 

To be on topic, the main problem with the Ka-50 was really that it came at the wrong time and place. Had a Ka-50 design been from an American company that had it in a two seat config, with CPG in front, pilot in back, and sent it to compete with the Apache... well, I think the Ka-50 would've become a very different animal.

 

In fact, I think it might not have been able to be done in DCS.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Hunt3r.j2

[sobek]

The ideal combat helicopter for attack?

 

To be on topic, the main problem with the Ka-50 was really that it came at the wrong time and place. Had a Ka-50 design been from an American company that had it in a two seat config, with CPG in front, pilot in back, and sent it to compete with the Apache... well, I think the Ka-50 would've become a very different animal.

 

This is a bit whishful thinking, IMHO. Sikorsky has researched coaxial rotor designs ad nauseam and if the army had jumped the train, they could have designed a coaxial combat chopper, i'm sure.

 

It seems that doctrine is the only thing to blame here. Coaxial designs have the inherent danger of blade intersection, which seems to be a huge turnoff for potential western customers.

[ARM505]

Although I see Sikorsky is now attempting to break the helicopter speed record with...a coaxial rotor helo (and a prop in the tail!). And those rotors seem mighty close together to me, so I guess there are ways and means.

 

http://blog.jameslist.com/2009/sikorsky-readies-the-world%E2%80%99s-fastest-heli/

[EvilBivol-1]

It seems that doctrine is the only thing to blame here. Coaxial designs have the inherent danger of blade intersection, which seems to be a huge turnoff for potential western customers.

I've read a number of times that the general risk of blade intersection in a coaxial helicopter is approximately the same as that of a tailboom strike in a classic helicopter. I'm not sure if this applies specifically to Kamov and Mil machines or all helicopter types in general. We do know however, that a great number of Mi-8s and Mi-24s have crashed due to tail boom strike incidents. Basically, as fas as I can tell, the percieved risk of blade intersection is far greater than the actual risk when compared to a classic assembly. But this may very well be a cultural phenomenon that has impacted the development of this technology. Also, consider the Ka-25 series and up, which are generally regarded as highly successfull and reliable machines in wide use for many years. Edited December 1, 2009 by EvilBivol-1

[EtherealN]

And those rotors seem mighty close together to me, so I guess there are ways and means.

 

Other materials used to construct the rotorblades that flex less, I would assume.

[Panzertard]

Other materials used to construct the rotorblades that flex less, I would assume.

In general that would mean they would snap even faster under high load.

I think we rather have those blades flexing a bit? ;)

[EtherealN]

Yeah, but that depends on the material. For example, a heavier material might need to flex less to relieve the stresses, or a stronger material might have better tolerances.

 

Or they might just have decided to build a chopper with a maximum G loading of like 3. That thing is meant to set speed records after all - not be a maneuvering combat chopper. :)

[sobek]

Guys, the problem with the articulated rotor system is not the blades flexing, but the flapping at the blade hinges. Remember, flapping reduces the AoA of a blade that's flapping upwards, thus countering dissymmetry of lift.

 

If one were to build a different system to actuate the rotor blades than what is currently used, flapping could be minimised by anticipating the AoA change needed to balance lift. I could be wrong, but i'm guessing that the rotorhead of the x2 can do that.

 

Edit: Looking at what pictures i could get of the X2 rotorhead, it does indeed seem to be clompletely hingeless and also constructed without a swashplate. Therefore i guess that the FBW system can actuate each blade individually, making flapping obsolete and therefore minimising the chance of blade intersection even at the high speeds that this thing is designed for.

Edited December 1, 2009 by sobek

[AlphaOneSix]

It has a swashplate, it's just on the bottom of the main gearbox instead of above it like every other helicopter in the world. Wires can't feather rotor blades, you still need hydraulic boosters for that, which means you have to have a swashplate, no way to get around that unless you build the control surfaces into the trailing edges of the rotor blades.

 

The rotor head is hingeless in the sense that there are no flap or drag hinges, but the blades still have feathering hinges. This design is already in use in many helicopters, such as the Lynx and the Bell 412, etc. The main difference with the X2 is that the blades themselves are stiffer to keep them from flexing as much as a typical rotor blade, thus allowing the two disks to be mounted very close together.

Edited December 1, 2009 by AlphaOneSix