Black Shark I don't want to wait

[Guest IguanaKing]

Got it...I guess I didn't catch the capital letter part. So, we were both half-right. ;)

[Guest IguanaKing]

That guy above me was Right I was refering to Mil Mi-14 Haze, both ASW and SAR versions we have here.

 

So how does it feel when somebody talk about you in 3rd person ?

 

Doesn't bother me a bit. :p

[Alfa]

Compare its price with Rafale-M, Su-33 and F/A-18E/F (the C/D aren't made enymore).

 

You didnt answer my question about what those prices are - yet you ask me to compare them.

 

But I do have some ideas about them and...

 

a). the MiG-29K is not going to be "cheap" in comparison with the Su-33 - not in the latter´s existing configuration anyway :)

 

b). the Su-33 is a complete no-go in connection with the Gorshkov anyway - the ship(deck, hangers, lifts etc) is quite simply not big enough to accomodate it.

 

And the MiG is sold with Gorshkov as one battle system, with any other aircaft the cost would be even bigger.

 

Agreed - not least since both Rafale and SuperHornet would require a catapult system(which itself is a costly contraption) for launching and thus new vessels incorporating this to be built since(AFAIK) no "second hand" ones are on offer anywhere.

 

But if you take a closer look, I think you will find that the MiG-29K can "hold its own" in the competition - whether cheaper or not :)

 

The radar station we got here is Pulse Doppler, so don't worry about that one.

 

Eh?...

 

- JJ.

[Starlight]

In my view, combat helicopters are not very useful in modern combat. A squadron of Longbow helicopters was sent to Albania to participate in (unlawful) attack on Yugoslavia. They were not even able to fly due to complexity of the technology and the real life challenges on nowadays battlefield.

Unfortunately two of the Longbows crashed and some of the crew man died. God bless them and their souls.

So, it would not surprise me if Russians are not building any more Black Sharks.

Production of Commanches is canceled all-together.

 

It's not that the helo is a useless weapon. It depends on many things... weapons, tactics, ROEs. In the first Gulf War (1991) a joint helo team did fire the first shots of war, opening a breach in the Iraqi EWR net and allowing ALL other aircraft to do their job. They flew even before Black Jets. And helos performed well throughout the war. In later conflicts maybe they performed a little worse, but there isn't much real data to talk about. It's much about guesses.

 

 

American hardware doesn't seem to be made for "real" wars.

M-16... reliability and effectivness issues..

Fighters... need clinically clean runways..

...and so on.

Russian hardware on the other hand...

AK-47, durable and high powered

Fighters... running just fine with grassy dirty runways..

 

There have been many weapon systems fielded during the Cold War that were well designed. Some were made in the West some in the East. I don't think you can say that USSR or USA made better weapons. Sometimes they put out good designs sometimes they didn't.

 

There is the common conception that Russian built weapons are rough, austere, simple and do work, while western weapons are pretty tech toys that do not work in the battlefield. I think that is a misconception.

 

First because some Russian built weapons are really marvels of high-tech, and not always cheap and rough systems. Then, some western weapons, while being also tech marvels, did prove to work, and also very well.

 

And, a final thought about the fighters "running fine" from grassy runways. First, you have to build a prepared grassy runway, it must be flat and solid. You can't takeoff/land wherever you want. Then, its operational utility is very very very limited, because you must have logistic structures for refuel/rearm and maintenance. And that's not simple to do away from an airfield. That is, ok you don't need a runway to fly a squadron of fighters. Ok, but you still need some hundren men and some dozens vehicles for logistic support. And they can still be cut to shreds by enemy attacks.

[Caretaker]

Like F-4F ? The Germans have no problems with them, in mather of fact they sold all of their MiGs to Poland for one Euro and modified the Phantoms to fly them until EF Typhoon comes in to the service.

 

"No problems" is hardly what I'd use to describe the state of our Phantom fleet here :D The list of restrictions on how to handle them is probably longer than the flight manual. That we still stick with them and gave the MiGs away was not because of the maintenance situation - acquisition of spare parts is even harder for the Phantoms these days than it ever was for the MiGs, and they've been downgraded for years now as well.

 

On the other hand, consider how much US planes are still flying in countries like Iran (where the spare parts situation apparently isn't too great either). Doesn't seem like those planes are useless in less-than-perfect conditions either.

 

The Apache apparently had a rather low flight rate in Desert Storm due to the relatively harsh environment (from what I remember). Then again they were the first units that entered enemy airspace and fired the first shots, and their record in that conflict isn't considered bad at all to my knowledge. Certainly nothing that proves helicopters are useless.

 

As for whether the Ka-50 is the best choice for an addon, we can discuss this all day long ;) Keep in mind that there's always a bunch of reasons behind such a decision. There aren't too many Su-25T's around either in the end, an addition that also didn't enhance the dogfight environment in Lock On too much and - just like the Ka-50 - really shouldn't fly around in areas of enemy air superiority. Still a nice addon overall, at least in my view :)

[Guest IguanaKing]

American hardware doesn't seem to be made for "real" wars.

M-16... reliability and effectivness issues..

AK-47, durable and high powered

 

*digging in*

 

That comparison is only half correct for both weapons. On the subject of reliability, the AK definitely comes out on top. One of the major problems with the M-16 is that its gas port is right there with the bolt-carrier group, so the chamber gets fouled much more quickly. Power or effectiveness, on the other hand, the M-16 actually takes the prize. The M-16 and its 5.56 ammo has much better armor penetration capabilities than the AK-47.

[Maximus_G]

The blades are going supersonic at the edge, right?

Should be transonic at the maximum helicopter speed, and are able to reach ~1.1M, in a dive + full throttle, for example.

 

The forward speed of the blades may fall outside the doppler gate and hence be detectable

I presume, about 200 m/s at 90% throttle, 300 km/h. Which gives us the tip speed of about ~285 m/s = 0.85M in standard conditions - well beyond the gate. But only about 1/4 of the disk area "coming" in our direction, and 1/4 going opposite.

 

...but presumably you need a large enough RCS of the blade in order to do that . . . . and there I imagine things get pretty interesting

Ka-50's blades are made of glass-fiber, coal-plastic, fibreboard, honeycomb plastic, etc. And the tips are clean, not having any kind of balancer.

[titanium]

That comparison is only half correct for both weapons. On the subject of reliability, the AK definitely comes out on top. One of the major problems with the M-16 is that its gas port is right there with the bolt-carrier group, so the chamber gets fouled much more quickly. Power or effectiveness, on the other hand, the M-16 actually takes the prize. The M-16 and its 5.56 ammo has much better armor penetration capabilities than the AK-47.

 

Well the ak uses 7.62 mm, so its completely opposite with the ak having more penetrating power because of its larger diameter.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_vs._AK-47 (go down where it talks about calliber under technological differences)

 

There was a interesting show on discovery channel that compared these two rifles and they actually showed a M-16 and a Ak bullet being fired at a concrete block. While the M-16 bullet just produced a round dent, the ak split the whole block in half. They also showed the two bullets being fired at wooden blocks. The ak bullet penetrated while the m-16 failed to penetrate.

 

 

Concerning the issue of a helo in lock on, I am optimistic That Ed will do what is necessary to make the lock on environment be appropriate for a hello. Most notably the trees must not be transperant and must be collideable.

 

A concern that I have though is with AI reaction times. Currently in 1.11, If you are behind a mountain that has a SAM site in the opposite side, the sam will instantly launch a missile at you as soon as you clear the mountain. This I think needs to be adressed because undoubtedly you would want to take cover behind mountains, hills, trees and even buildings with a helo.

[upyr1]

The Ka-50 is an old design, older than the mi-28, back then, Kamov "won" the competition, now the mi-28 will enter "mass" production (as in 8 units per year), and the Ka-50 is going to die out. Maybe the mi-28 was a better choice after all

hi,

looking at the two I am not shocked to see the Mi-28 becoming the main attack chopper as it looked to me like they based it on the hind.

[upyr1]

1.2 is the last add on for Lock On, Alfa.

AFAIK contract between UBI and ED allows ED to do 2 addons maksimum.

After that ED must consider new title.

hi,

the real question is are they going to design some thing entirely new or design some thing that is an add on every way but in name...I just want to see some new AC and to dogfight the old ones we have.

[Vati]

I can confirm, that helo can indeed be observed by PD from the rotor even if it is hovering and it is not in ground clutter.

While I was in army, we used to NCTRed helos easily with our radars based on the helo's rotor configuration, passing this data to AD units.

[Yellonet]

I can confirm, that helo can indeed be observed by PD from the rotor even if it is hovering and it is not in ground clutter.

While I was in army, we used to NCTRed helos easily with our radars based on the helo's rotor configuration, passing this data to AD units.

Did you use pulse doppler radar?

[Maximus_G]

PD = Pulse Doppler.

[Shaman]

You think you need to pick up on the "current affairs" and ED´s intentions and plans ;)

Enlighten me then :)

 

cheers

[Iron Legionnaire]

Well the ak uses 7.62 mm, so its completely opposite with the ak having more penetrating power because of its larger diameter.

 

Well, larger diameter does not mean better penetrating power. Logic would suggest that the opposite is the case. If you were to take a nail, halve its length and double its diameter, which do you believe would be easier to nail into a piece of wood, the original nail, or the altered one? The AK round is heavier, and has greater kinetic energy, but this does not directly translate into better penetration.

[Yellonet]

PD = Pulse Doppler.

Ok, then it's confirmed I guess that hovering helos can be tracked by 'PD' radar.

 

I wonder if it's any different with a Ka-50 concerning the counter rotating rotors... pd average = zero?

[Yellonet]

Well, larger diameter does not mean better penetrating power. Logic would suggest that the opposite is the case. If you were to take a nail, halve its length and double its diameter, which do you believe would be easier to nail into a piece of wood, the original nail, or the altered one? The AK round is heavier, and has greater kinetic energy, but this does not directly translate into better penetration.

Not directly, but as you say the heavier bullet has much greater energy and keeps its high energy for far longer. So while the penetration of 5.56x45 and 7.62x39(in this case) could be comparable at short range the heavier bullet will win over medium and long ranges.

And what I originally meant by effectivness was that the M-16 was initially equipped with rather inneffective ammo... I'm not sure about the details but the M-16 was pretty much disliked in the beginning.

Lobbying and too much corporate power in political positions makes soldiers fight with bad equipment.

[Manny]

quote=Sundowner.pl

 

I have to disagree with you, the rotating blades give a very strong echo, and can be seen by radar from long ranges, a helo like Mi-8 have RCS of the rotor itself in 8m^2 range (6 or less for new composite ones).

 

This is highly logical. If one has ever been exposed to an Electro-magnetic test environment and observed, in an Electro-magnetic chamber, mechanical stirrer in operation, a parallel can be drawn for rotor blades of course revolving at a much higher revolution but still slower than the speed of light. In prinicple, the rotor blades would be the equivalent of a solid disc partially scattering and/or interrupting the fuselage RCS but still allowing detection.

 

This is, of course, similar to receiving RADAR echoes off stage-1 intake fans of jet engines.

 

Thats enough for radar which wavelength is in millimeters. Trust me on this one, I live all my life with helos and their crews.

 

Exactly why, in an EM environment, rotor blades unmask helos from a distance when "looking" down upon them. At near level flight, the handle between the pilot's legs are the safest choice.

[Guest IguanaKing]

Well the ak uses 7.62 mm, so its completely opposite with the ak having more penetrating power because of its larger diameter.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M16_vs._AK-47 (go down where it talks about calliber under technological differences)

 

There was a interesting show on discovery channel that compared these two rifles and they actually showed a M-16 and a Ak bullet being fired at a concrete block. While the M-16 bullet just produced a round dent, the ak split the whole block in half. They also showed the two bullets being fired at wooden blocks. The ak bullet penetrated while the m-16 failed to penetrate.

 

Hehe...I know its counter-intuitive due to the relative sizes of the projectiles, but yes, the M-16 DOES, in fact, have more armor penetration ability than the AK-47. Neither a concrete block, nor a wood block reacts in the same way as armor. ;) US Marines of the 1/23 in Iraq tested this on a HMMWV. At about 30 yards, the AK round failed to go all the way through even the near door. The M-16 round was going through the near door, through the vehicle, and through the far door at distances of 50 yards and further.

[Yellonet]

Hehe...I know its counter-intuitive due to the relative sizes of the projectiles, but yes, the M-16 DOES, in fact, have more armor penetration ability than the AK-47. Neither a concrete block, nor a wood block reacts in the same way as armor. ;) US Marines of the 1/23 in Iraq tested this on a HMMWV. At about 30 yards, the AK round failed to go all the way through even the near door. The M-16 round was going through the near door, through the vehicle, and through the far door at distances of 50 yards and further.

That's probably true as the 7.62 x 39 mm round doesn't have a very much larger muzzle energy than the 5.56 x 45 mm (~2000 J vs. ~1700 J) but when it comes to piercing armour the area of the bullet is obviously of high importance, so at short range the smaller bullet will have an advantage due to higher energy per area unit.

The 7.62 x 51 mm round beats both by a large margin though with a muzzle energy of about 3300 J.

[192nd_Erdem]

Interesting,a while ago I watched a decumentary on Discovery.They compared Ak-47 and M-16.On the penetration and firepower tests,Ak-47 beat the hell out of M-16 :)

[Yellonet]

Interesting,a while ago I watched a decumentary on Discovery.They compared Ak-47 and M-16.On the penetration and firepower tests,Ak-47 beat the hell out of M-16 :)

At what range?

[Guest IguanaKing]

That's probably true as the 7.62 x 39 mm round doesn't have a very much larger muzzle energy than the 5.56 x 45 mm (~2000 J vs. ~1700 J) but when it comes to piercing armour the area of the bullet is obviously of high importance, so at short range the smaller bullet will have an advantage due to higher energy per area unit.

 

Yes...but the 7.62X39 failed to penetrate the first lightly armored surface at an even shorter range than that at which the 5.56X45 round was going right through both surfaces easily.

 

They did disspell a negative myth about the AK-47 though. There has been a myth around for a while that the AK-47 sacrificed accuracy in favor of durability. The Marines found that to be exactly that...a myth. They actually found that the AK-47 is frighteningly accurate, by doing their own testing on small objects such as cigarettes.

[192nd_Erdem]

At what range?

 

Not much,15-20 meters.

[hitman]

The M-16 was designed to take heads off at 500+yards. The AK was designed as a supression weapon, much like the M-60, only lighter. And the biggest difference between the 5.56 and the 7.62 ammo is the way it fragments. The 7.62 will just plow through, while the 5.56 nato ball will tumble and rip apart. The main difference between the rounds is the accuracy. The nato ammo travels at a higher rate while the warsaw ammo travels at slower speeds.

 

Its all in kinetics I guess.