Ka-50´s flaws (I think)

[JACN]

Disagree all you like. This technique is not used, running rocket strafing is what's used.

 

Perhaps we should ask about it to Apache pilots in Afganistan... :smilewink:

 

Álvaro

[Griffin]

Perhaps we should ask about it to Apache pilots in Afganistan... :smilewink:

 

I think he has some knowledge on the subject. ;)

Also those who have read the Ed Macy's Apache, also know that they don't use hovering attacks even in the relatively "low threat" environment let alone in a battlefield with modern anti-air weapons.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Griffin

[GGTharos]

Go ahead. I also suggest watching some of the rocket attacks by Apaches on youtube when you get a couple minutes. ;)

 

Perhaps we should ask about it to Apache pilots in Afganistan... :smilewink:

 

Álvaro

[sobek]

Yeah, especially with all those supersonic tanks on the battlefield.

 

Did i not knowingly manhandle you? What's with the backtalk? :huh: Besides, reducing flight time of the missile does present certain merits, just because you don't see them doesn't mean they are not there. Nevermind, too much OT anyway.

[mvsgas]

About rocket fire:

I do not know if the Apache is more accurate. I'm not an expert nor do I claim to be one, but every video I have seen about the Apache rockets employment, shows the same level of accuracy and same technique to use the rockets.

http://www.apacheclips.com/media/90/Compilation_of_Apache_Hunt/

 

About the flight limits:

BUT is regarding the operative limitations...WHY did Kamov decided to leave ALL the weight of this critical issue on the pilot´s shoulders??!. The aircraft has literally no auto-limitation on its envelope boundaries!. If you fly forward at 265 kph and apply full left rudder you´ll be able to perform a quite agressive turn+pull in order to reverse but, if you perform the same maoeuvre to the right...simply you´re dead

Every aircraft has flight limits and most will let you exceed them. The F-16 is an aircraft that the pilot has not physical connection to the flight control, yet you can still put in aircrfat in situation that can kill you. Training is all you need, all pilots(at least the ones I work with) know not to exceed this limits and know how to work around them.

 

Now I know the KA-50 is not perfect, there many reasons why the Russian government only bought it in small numbers. But I do not think the rockets are that differently used and I think the trim is good and flight controls are good to. Just my two cents. :thumbup:

[graywo1fg]

its all about technique when flying this choppa. i agree with Viper, an experienced pilot can slam that chopper around and make it do whatever. the trick is to drop collective when you want to do a crazy move. like i can go max speed drop the collective and bank as hard as i can and then ad collective after i have flexed the rotors with my crazy move. i can go from 280kmph to a dead hover in 4 seconds. loops, barrel rolls its all possible. I love the choppa :D yes it could have better weapons but it really does the job well IMO.

[topol-m]

http://www.apacheclips.com/media/90/Compilation_of_Apache_Hunt/

 

 

 

What exactly happened in that video? How did they lose the FLIR? And what was that inaccurate rockets firing? I mean even at close distance not only they couldn`t hit the target with a single rocket but those fell pretty far away from the target. :huh:

[mvsgas]

I have no idea what happen. I was saying that rockets are not accurate, whether the rocket pods are mounted on a movable pylon or not. They are an area weapon and wouldn't be use at long distance.

 

http://www.apacheclips.com/media/1559/Apache_rocket_attack/

[Feuerfalke]

Looks like secondaries. There was a dug in position of some kind and something blew up the moment he fired at it - well, at least that's my interpretation.

 

As to rocket inaccuracy: The pilot mentioned, that they were to going fast and too close to the targets. That's probably why the rockets landed off the aimpoint.

[MBot]

Go ahead. I also suggest watching some of the rocket attacks by Apaches on youtube when you get a couple minutes. ;)

 

GG, standard NATO (and partially WP) anti-tank helicopter tactics in Europe were to attack from the hover. There is no denying that. Should the Apache every be used against a mechanized force of equal capabilities with proper support, you can bet that they will revert to the proven tactics of the 80s. As such, the ability to employ rockets from the hover is an important capability which the Ka-50 could not enjoy.

 

A major flaw of the Ka-50, it could not efficiently use one weapon system in one important attack profile (yes the WP considered the hover an important attack profile; see here). Of course it doesn't matter for what the Ka-50 does today, but that doesn't change the fact that it affected what it was designed to accomplish.

[GGTharos]

Those tactics were for ATGMs, not rockets.

 

GG, standard NATO (and partially WP) anti-tank helicopter tactics in Europe were to attack from the hover. There is no denying that. Should the Apache every be used against a mechanized force of equal capabilities with proper support, you can bet that they will revert to the proven tactics of the 80s. As such, the ability to employ rockets from the hover is an important capability which the Ka-50 could not enjoy.

 

A major flaw of the Ka-50, it could not efficiently use one weapon system in one important attack profile (yes the WP considered the hover an important attack profile; see here). Of course it doesn't matter for what the Ka-50 does today, but that doesn't change the fact that it affected what it was designed to accomplish.

[MBot]

Those tactics were for ATGMs, not rockets.

 

Those tactics were for ATGMs, rockets and the cannon. Rockets and cannons were considered suppression weapons while other elements were using ATGM.

Edited November 27, 2009 by MBot

[Frederf]

Surely the Ka-50 could use a massive redesign to be "the best" it could be.

 

Personally I'm not a fan of "glass cockpits." At night or low light its rather stressful on the eyes. An LCD just plain can't show "black" like a mechanical gauge can. I know MFDs and such are good for decluttering the cockpit which is a great thing but they have their downsides as well.

 

The FCS could use a severe overhaul with a real yaw dampener along with proper holds on all the channels, including rate of climb, target altitude, and altitude alerter. An autopilot that is capable of holding a course and/or track instead of a simple heading. A full fly-by-wire system like the F-16 couldn't hurt either.

 

More memory points in the PVI-800 which is honestly a fantastic piece of hardware despite looking like a prototype prop from Back to the Future. I suppose full integration with ABRIS would also be nice but not necessary.

 

As for the AH-64 vs Ka-50 rocket comment... that makes no sense. The range of the rockets has nothing to do with if the launchers are on pivots or not. If you want to shoot a rocket a long way you would just pitch up the aircraft. The Ka-50 WCS shows you how to aim, the only thing preventing you from 4km rocket lobs is the range-inhibit feature when the WCS is set to auto.

[Griffin]

Very interesting info. Here's a nice video of Apache firing it's gun and rockets from hover on a shooting range:

 

 

Sorry for off-topic.

Edited November 27, 2009 by Griffin

[26-J39]

Regardless of official procedures the KA50 can employ rockets from a hover very well.. It's comes down to pilot skill and knowing when are where to use the technique. Just because the launchers don't tilt like the Apache ( don't why every1 compares these two helo's, they are nothing alike) doesn't mean it can't be done, the KA50 has to compensate with altitude. For example on DRAGON's Rookie Terrorist mission, i love trying to complete the missions using ONLY rockets and cannon. I do a lot of rocket salvo launches from hover and can kill up to 6 targets from a med salvo... Because there are alot of target in close proximity and the mountain ranges you are able to really cause some hell :D

[Frederf]

Why does the Ka-50 have to compensate with altitude? If the rockets are ballistically similar then simply pitching up should be sufficient.

[sweinhart3]

If you want the ultimate combat helicopter - that would be Ka-52 armed with hermes missiles. Take that Longbow! :D

 

 

Is there really such a thing? I want mine armed with herpes missles tho.

[JACN]

Very interesting info. Here's a nice video of Apache firing it's gun and rockets from hover on a shooting range:

 

 

Sorry for off-topic.

 

That´s exactly what I meant with the rockets.

 

The Apache can use the cannon and missiles from a perfectly estabilized hover condition...as can the Ka-50. BUT, the Apache can also use rockets in that condition...which the Ka-50 cannot. See from the point of view you want but that is a disadvantage because both aircrafts do not have (speaking strictly about rockets) the same capabilities: Apache can do the same as Ka-50 about rockets firing plus using them while hovering.

 

The ones who don´t consider it as a useful technique....do they use cannon and ATGMs from a "moving"=not hovering condition?. Is for them easier to lock and fire ATGMs or cannon in forward (backward or lateral flight) than in hover flight?.

 

So, if its easier (and sometimes safer) to use those weapons while hovering...WHY the rockets should not?.

 

As I said in my first post, some wrong considerations during the design phase can be the root of it. Perhaps I´m wrong but I find too many similarities with the SU-25´s FCC rockets management...perhaps both aircrafts share the same FCC module?. It´s fast, easy and cheap to retrofit a proven technology in engineering, but many times it´s not the best solution, specially when the use enviroment has (even slightly) changed. And all of this could have to do with some comments people have made about an "unfinished" Ka-50 and old philosophy design applied at the end of an era. Or said in other words: born in the wrong moment

 

Anyway it´s a superb machine with MANY MANY other capabilities other attack helos do not share. Of course, with the right piloting skills some of the disadvantageous points can be mitigated (though still will be there) putting it at the same level of any other helo if used in the correct scenery. This post was not a malignant criticism to the Ka-50 but an objective mention of some weak points in this aircraft that could have been avoided and perhaps someday will be fixed...maybe in the Ka-52.

 

Álvaro

[sweinhart3]

Further, the apache pilot would be concentrating just as much on delivery as the ka-50 pilot, and this is why you have automated counter-measures. The Apache's main advantage isn't the tilting rocket pylons, it's better sensors/avionics and especially the second pair of eyes.

 

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.

[Boberro]

Is there really such a thing? I want mine armed with herpes missles tho.

 

Yes but as far only in development. Hope they finish it soon and finally make FF missle after ;]

[26-J39]

Why does the Ka-50 have to compensate with altitude? If the rockets are ballistically similar then simply pitching up should be sufficient.

 

Yes.. you can pitch up/down or u can increase/decrease altitude..

[26-J39]

That´s exactly what I meant with the rockets.

 

The Apache can use the cannon and missiles from a perfectly estabilized hover condition...as can the Ka-50. BUT, the Apache can also use rockets in that condition...which the Ka-50 cannot.

 

Since when?, the KA50 can do so with no problems.. Have you tried? Correct proceedure or not techniques will always vary between countries.

 

As I said in my first post, some wrong considerations during the design phase can be the root of it. Perhaps I´m wrong but I find too many similarities with the SU-25´s FCC rockets management...perhaps both aircrafts share the same FCC module?. It´s fast, easy and cheap to retrofit a proven technology in engineering, but many times it´s not the best solution, specially when the use enviroment has (even slightly) changed. And all of this could have to do with some comments people have made about an "unfinished" Ka-50 and old philosophy design applied at the end of an era. Or said in other words: born in the wrong moment

 

Oh please!! Did you work for Kamov? sounds like you know the inner story..

 

Anyway it´s a superb machine with MANY MANY other capabilities other attack helos do not share. Of course, with the right piloting skills some of the disadvantageous points can be mitigated

 

Yes, correct.. With the right piloting skills ALL of the disadvantageous points are acceptable, like any machine.

[MBot]

Since when?, the KA50 can do so with no problems.. Have you tried? Correct proceedure or not techniques will always vary between countries.

 

 

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.

[ZaltysZ]

In real life I would not hover in battlefield. Move, move and once again move. I think Soviet doctrine was the same. The reason is simple: it is harder to hit you when you are moving; it is easier for you to survive if one engine malfunctions - you can still escape; and in case of both engines dead, you can still auto rotate and land. Also I think earlier ATGMs required stable launch, which was possible only in forward flight.

 

Unguided rockets from hover? Are they useful when you need to destroy empty camp and there is no ramming stone at hand? :) Yes, in game we can do lots of weird stuff (I do it my self), but do you really think that you can do the same in reality? Ok, you can :D But will you look smart then?

Edited November 28, 2009 by ZaltysZ

[MBot]

Unguided rockets from hover? Are they useful when you need to destroy empty camp and there is no ramming stone at hand? :) Yes, in game we can do lots of weird stuff (I do it my self), but do you really think that you can do the same in reality? Ok, you can :D But will you look smart then?

 

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.