KA 50

[GGTharos]

Who says they'd be equipped with R-73's if they -did- purchase a Ka-50 force?

 

That's the whole point - it would more than likely NOT equip them, for reasons -other- than budgetary issues.

[D-Scythe]

AH-1W Cobras, AH-64A/D Apaches and OH-58 Kiowas have been able to carry Stinger and Sidearm missiles since the 90s. Sidewinder missiles can be mounted, but often times their size and weight were severe limiting factors - in the Whiskey Cobra, no other weapon can be mounted on it's stub wings if it was loaded with an AIM-9. During the 80s the Soviets also tested out R-60/R-73 missiles on their Hinds, and found that, in addition to being uncomfortably large, its performance (and probably that of the AIM-9L/M too) in a helicopter was less than satisfactory.

 

Nevertheless, some Hinds were equipped with R-60s for some interception work (they managed to shootdown a civilian hot-air balloon at one point, though probably not with AAMs).

 

My impression is that Stinger/Igla-type AAMs are more popular with helicopters - against slow, unsuspecting targets, most ATGMs (i.e. Hellfire, TOW, Vikhr-M) can also be used (witness Iran-Iraq war). Notably, a fit of Stinger AAMs is considered standard for Apache and Kiowa combat loadouts, but it looks like in Iraq and Afghanistan, where threat from enemy aircraft is minimal, they go without them.

[EvilBivol-1]

Couple of things:

 

As far as the A-A missile goes, there was some discussion about this on the Russian forums. As it looks *right now*, the devs are hesitant to model this very hypothetical capability. Even if it is reasonable to argue that the real thing *would* be able to carry one of the in-service A-A missiles, they are very hard-bent on documentation and proof. Now, naturaly, there is always going to be some guess-work in this business, but they would like to limit it to the minimum. They really don't know how this would work (as far as the avionics presentation) if it was implemented and are not inclined to simply use their imaginations. I believe whatever documentation they do have says that the WCS does not support any A-A modes. The best they could do is improvise something like the Longitutional Missile Aiming mode we currently have.

 

Having said that, who knows what will happen between now and then...

 

Given that most of us have HOTAS setup ... how are ED going to model the controls of a helicopter ... i.e. collective?

 

As I understand it, its actually quite simple. The throttle acts as the collective, which in actuality controls the rotor pitch angle, while the FCS automatically adjusts the engine RPMs as needed. This was news to me as well, but apparently it is standard on most turbo-shaft choppers. In cases of failure to the FCS or other pertinent systems, you will have control of both functions separately, but I'm not sure how they will be split. I imagine the RPMs could be mapped to a rotator or something of that nature.

[SUBS17]

Given that most of us have HOTAS setup ... how are ED going to model the controls of a helicopter ... i.e. collective?

 

Commonly done through reverse throttle on the Hotas.

[SUBS17]

AAMs are compulsory for Lockon as the helicopters will definately be engaging A/A. For AA combat helicopters fight in chance encounters or targets of opportunity. If you're operating in a theatre where your side does not have Air Superority then you will require an AAM of some sort. Thats why the US removed theirs, as their CAP and AWACs prevent the likelyhood of such encounters. Lockons world is different though and it must be thought through or maybe an option implemented to allow or prevent use of AAMs by the Ka50.

[akdavis]

Who says they'd be equipped with R-73's if they -did- purchase a Ka-50 force?

 

That's the whole point - it would more than likely NOT equip them, for reasons -other- than budgetary issues.

 

Yes, they are not likely to be operating in an environment where they would be needed, i.e. the war scenarios put forward in Lock On. I'd rather not fly a Ka-50 equipped for Chechnya in a game where my force does not have total air supremacy and I face interception by fighters, prowling A-10s and a large force of Apaches. That doesn't sound very fun.

[Alfa]

Couple of things:

 

As far as the A-A missile goes, there was some discussion about this on the Russian forums. As it looks *right now*, the devs are hesitant to model this very hypothetical capability. Even if it is reasonable to argue that the real thing *would* be able to carry one of the in-service A-A missiles, they are very hard-bent on documentation and proof. Now, naturaly, there is always going to be some guess-work in this business, but they would like to limit it to the minimum. They really don't know how this would work (as far as the avionics presentation) if it was implemented and are not inclined to simply use their imaginations. I believe whatever documentation they do have says that the WCS does not support any A-A modes. The best they could do is improvise something like the Longitutional Missile Aiming mode we currently have.

 

Strange - I have yet to see a source on the Ka-50 that doesnt list the Igla as part of its armament package.

 

Cheers,

- JJ.

[Kula66]

Commonly done through reverse throttle on the Hotas.

Hmmm ... I've flown model helicopters ... but I have no idea what a reverse throttle is?

[Whisper]

Hmmm ... I've flown model helicopters ... but I have no idea what a reverse throttle is?

Throttle giving more power when you pull it, less when you push it ;)

[britgliderpilot]

Throttle giving more power when you pull it, less when you push it ;)

 

 

Also see: "Top Gun" :p

[Kula66]

But helicopters have blade pitch and power controls ... and you fly the rotor disk and the tail rotor ... if this is going to be modelled accurately, how do you go about controlling it with a standard HOTAS setup?

[britgliderpilot]

But helicopters have blade pitch and power controls ... and you fly the rotor disk and the tail rotor ... if this is going to be modelled accurately, how do you go about controlling it with a standard HOTAS setup?

 

Well the rotor tilt would be controlled by the stick, the yaw would be controlled by the rudder pedals/rocker/whatever, and the collective would be controlled by the throttle.

 

 

On the last page of this thread is a quote saying that engine RPM is linked through the FCS to the collective on modern choppers - i.e. when you move the collective the power is altered automatically.

 

So it would actually be completely possible to fly a chopper with a standard HOTAS setup.

[169th_Crusty]

Also see: "Top Gun" :p

Hehe, I assume you refer to "hit brakes-fly right by" scene. ...and I always

thought he pushed the wing sweep man. override lever (located next to the

throttles)... I would have to see it again - Oh, never mind :)

[britgliderpilot]

Hehe, I assume you refer to "hit brakes-fly right by" scene. ...and I always

thought he pushed the wing sweep man. override lever (located next to the

throttles)... I would have to see it again - Oh, never mind :)

 

Hmmn . . . . an intriguing thought.

 

We know that Top Gun is, erm, guilty of some technical inaccuracies . . . . and as it happens, my DVD collection is on the shelf next to my PC . . . . will check it later this evening.

 

It is vital scientific research!

[BearF_CO_159th]

Vital scientific research?

 

You don't believe that anymore than we do! lol

[EvilBivol-1]

Strange - I have yet to see a source on the Ka-50 that doesnt list the Igla as part of its armament package.

Would you trust those sources over a *very* experienced and informed combat helicopter driver who happens to be the son of a Ka-50 test pilot? :biggrin:

[Alfa]

Would you trust those sources over a *very* experienced and informed combat helicopter driver who happens to be the son of a Ka-50 test pilot? :biggrin:

 

Probably not - but it is nevertheless strange that so many, otherwise reliable sources, claim this if it isnt the case.

 

- JJ.

[Kula66]

On the last page of this thread is a quote saying that engine RPM is linked through the FCS to the collective on modern choppers - i.e. when you move the collective the power is altered automatically.

Yep... my model was originally configured like that ... a real pain to land, as you reduced pitch you lose power as well ... not good! I converted it to a separate pitch/power and it was MUCH easier to fly, you could keep power on as you landed.

[VapoR]

Something funny just occured to me: I was thinking of how poorly translated the title for 1.1 came out and was thinking how Black Shark sounds much better. Then I thought about how we abbreviate 1.1 as FC--well 1.2 will be BS, which is once again leaving a wide open invitation for abuse!! :D

[debug]

You're dead wrong.

 

By the way, Vac tubes maybe have had more resistance to EMP, but they liked to fail extremely often, especially when mounted on aircraft or missiles.

.

Well they aren't standard Vacuum tubes that you have in say an audio amplifier. They are miniature tubes with a lot better MTBF than standard tubes.

We (Sweden) used them in our cold war fighter J35 and we had lots of these planes flying up until the 1990: ies.

I guess we used them for the same reason that the Russians did in the MIG25, at the time (60: ies) it was the only thing that could be manufactured domestically.

It is of course better to use silicon based electronics but the vacuum tubes did its job.

 

On the matter of Russian "low-tech" the big difference is perhaps the reliability and the MTBF design targets.

Many Russian parts and planes are designed for a low MTBF.

As far as I understand the reason for that is both technically, tactical and political.

 

1 Technical, having a low MTBF as a target means you can build it cheaper and easier.

That also means you can build more for the same amount of money.

2 Tactical, producing parts like a jet engine with a low MTBF is easier so you can use less skilled workforce.

But more importantly, they run the factories with a wartime productivity output schedule even at peace time, so in case war breaks our there is no adaptation time needed for the factories.

4 Political, having factories producing a high output of parts and goods for the military in peace time was desirably for the Soviet Union as it was foremost a “state for the worker”

In choosing between producing expensive parts that lasted long and gave less jobs - and producing inexpensive parts that lasted a short time so you could employ more people, the choice was easy.

 

Western states have a different view on military munitions and are focusing more on reliability and state of the art technology.

 

So you have the “cheep and plentiful” and on the other hand “expensive and complicated” doctrine.

 

The high-tech doctrine isn’t necessarily better than the low-tech, it’s just a different way of doing things.

 

Regards

//deBug

[GGTharos]

High MBTF you mean.

 

Sure, but the fact still is ... vacuum tubes fail. A lot. Especially when subjected to vibration - esp. from that era. This was more evident on things like missiles than aircraft (missile electroncis had problems surviving landings) but you get the idea.

[Weta43]

No - he's saying they just made lots of parts & replaced them, which is the opposite of what it said in the table I found, which if I have a quiet afternoon I will try to find a link to ...

[GGTharos]

Gotcha ... ok.

 

TO me, historically, anyway, vacuum tubes=teh sucks for maintenance (lots of replacing) ... might not be a huge issue in AC (it lands, you check stuff, replace stuff) but it was in missiles at least.

[debug]

High MBTF you mean.

No, I mean MTBF - Mean Time Between Failure.

 

//deBug

[GGTharos]

I always mispell that :P