Ka-50 30mm vs A10 30mm

[cltmmm]

nor could it fit in any helicopter.. not just the shark... imagine firing the avenger even in a dive... you'll probably get your ass backwards and up when you're actually wanting to go down and forwards.

 

GAU-8 = 10,000 lbs of recoil...

 

http://www.gdatp.com/factsheets/A013_GAU-8A.pdf

[Yurgon]

also, does anybody know when do choppers use those useless rockets? ..i mean, they are soo, useless.. why have them.. wouldn't it be better to be armed with gun-pods instead..

 

Think of them as artillery. If you want to unleash a lot of destruction on an area, they're very useful. Just don't try to snipe with them, you'll be in small arms range by the time you can pick individual targets. :D

[Bushmanni]

Rockets are best against area targets. I think it was mission named Highway where you had to find and destroy insurgent base at the mountains. I flew there, found the base and took out MANPADS sentries with Vikhrs and then leveled the base with S-8 rockets launching all of them in one go from 3km distance. The spread was about the same as the camp size and only few infantry and tents survived that I moved down with gun. In real life you would probably usually use them to level patches of forest where you know some enemy infantry are hiding but can't see them.

[Kaktus29]

yes, if we had Flechette rockets than this changes everything.. you can get even more destruction to soft targets and with much less rockets..

 

does anybody know why are russian helis always moving towards the target when launching their ordnance ? .. does the Mi-24 seriously need to move forward when they launch their rockets or vikhr/ataka missiles? ..

 

even when they fire cannon they keep moving towards the target? .. to counter the "recoil" ))lol..?

 

don't get it..

[Boberro]

Based on what did you make such opinion about that?

[Griffin]

Well "speed is life" probably applies to helicopters too. If you watch the numerous Apache videos from Afghanistan and Iraq, they are always moving. Same for Cobra videos and the like. Only very few videos exist showing attacks from hover and there was some external view training video of Apaches firing while hovering. There was a series called Helicopter Wars and if you can find the episode where a Lynx was dueling with a skilled tank commander in Iraq. The Lynx had to keep flying racetrack patterns to keep itself out the sights of the tank.

Mi-24 was built as a high speed attack helicopter. Speed was supposed to be one of it's advantages AFAIK.

[Yurgon]

does anybody know why are russian helis always moving towards the target when launching their ordnance ? .. does the Mi-24 seriously need to move forward when they launch their rockets or vikhr/ataka missiles? ..

 

One possible and plausible explanation would be to simply save fuel. Hovering takes a lot more engine power than forward flight. IIRC, Ed Macy wrote in "Apache" that they were usually circling in the target area because it would notably extend their loiter time.

 

Other possible reasons:

• A moving target is harder to hit, so this decreases the probability for the helo to get shot and/or hit
  
• More kinetic energy to use in case of engine failure/autorotation
  
• Quicker helo response when flying defensive maneuvers
  

[seikdel]

also, does anybody know when do choppers use those useless rockets? ..i mean, they are soo, useless.. why have them.. wouldn't it be better to be armed with gun-pods instead..

Chechnya, for one. S-8 rockets were the most-used weapon, with 929 being used!

 

GAU-8 = 10,000 lbs of recoil...

You could almost fly with it...

 

yes, if we had Flechette rockets than this changes everything.. you can get even more destruction to soft targets and with much less rockets..

 

does anybody know why are russian helis always moving towards the target when launching their ordnance ? .. does the Mi-24 seriously need to move forward when they launch their rockets or vikhr/ataka missiles? ..

I personally find it easier to place the pipper on-target when I'm moving. I don't know if this has anything to do with it.

+1 on flechettes!

[WildBillKelsoe]

the A-10 gun = 7 Ka-50's 2A42 firing altogether at the same time.

[Erforce]

The A-10 gun = 7 blinded Ka-50's 2A42 firing altogether at the same time.

 

:)

 

Do you pick up targets (humans) with 2 bullets at 3km in an A-10?

A-10 gun has some flaws, admit it :D

[Kaktus29]

yeah i guess i see the point in moving chopper being more capable of defensive action than hovering one, plus the fuel saving measure, plus harder target to hit instead if it hovers..but still, the chopper is moving TOWARDS the target so i'm thinking isn't it counter-productive to do that when you are going into the enemy range to hit you?..

 

if you have some woods or building to hide after you launch your weapon, should loitering be better.. how long is chopper active anyway once they find an enemy.. shouldn't all the action be done in 5-10 minutes and then head back to base for reload anyway?

 

About A-10 guns vs. Ka-50 i would say choppers have advantage since they will not fly over the target after they use the guns, a big important issue where chopper can use the cannon much more and more different targets positioned differently than A-10 or any other CAS plane can,.. after the initial attack A-10 has to circle and this takes time, .. chopper can hover all the time and take 1 target after another...

 

i also believe moving makes the chopper aim better with rockets and guns-especially if the guns are fixed like on some Mi-24's..

 

so moving and basically strafing the target as if its a plane you are using.. while the moving cannon should give you the advantage to be still while you use it and hit as many target as you can before alerting the enemy of your position and going into evasive action..

[Pyroflash]

A-10C definitely has the advantage when it comes to defensive maneuvers. The cannon is also a ton more capable. The airplane also does not see a reduction in platform stability because of PAC, and the airplane can also attack from further away. Although the real kicker is that it is capable of employing a much, much wider range of munitions from a more desirable location, with more lethality. The helicopter is not.

[EtherealN]

does anybody know why are russian helis always moving towards the target when launching their ordnance ? .. does the Mi-24 seriously need to move forward when they launch their rockets or vikhr/ataka missiles? ..

 

Helicopters are much more stable platforms when moving in forward flight, reducing transverse moments on the weapons. Since Russia relies to a much higher degree on unguided munitions that the US currently does, this is basically about increasing weapon accuracy.

 

American helicopters also use this attack method normally when they will be using rockets, AFAIK. But of course, american helicopters rely more heavily on guided weapons (hellfires etcetera) than the russians, which allow different attack profiles.

 

As for why they do this with Vikhrs and Atakas as well... Not sure. Could be as simple as extending the reach of their weapons: if you launch at speed, your weapon will reach longer because it has some speed even before it ignites the motor.

[159th_Falcon]

As for why they do this with Vikhrs and Atakas as well... Not sure. Could be as simple as extending the reach of their weapons: if you launch at speed, your weapon will reach longer because it has some speed even before it ignites the motor.

 

But at the same time you will also be approaching the target while guiding the missile.

 

So upon impact of the missile, when are you further away?

When missile was fired from a hover or when missile was fired from forward flight?

 

Anyone saffy enough to do the calculations?:book:

[EtherealN]

Well, this depends really. I can't do the calculations myself (not enough data on the missiles etcetera), but since your sensors are on gimbals you should be able to "crank" after the shot, similar to how fighters handle zoom-shots.

 

But of course, the speed differential is greater there. With luck someone will have some employment manuals which documents this for attack helos.

 

The reason could also be that they would typically operate in a fashion where they can never be sure about what is under them. Keeping on the move then ensures no hidden infantry below them will plink them. Basic difference between having the helos move WITH your ground forces (and thus they'll know there's nothing under them and they can hover safely), and moving ahead as part of a spearhead, meaning that there's no friendly forces under them. (I've seen some video from the infantry perspective, where they were training US MANPAD operators against a Hind, and the MANPAD operator hiding in his forest had something like 2-3 seconds to line up a shot. Pretty much impossible...)

Edited April 22, 2013 by EtherealN

[159th_Viper]

A-10C definitely has the advantage when it comes to defensive maneuvers. The cannon is also a ton more capable. The airplane also does not see a reduction in platform stability because of PAC, and the airplane can also attack from further away. Although the real kicker is that it is capable of employing a much, much wider range of munitions from a more desirable location, with more lethality. The helicopter is not.

 

The premis of comparing the Kamov and the A-10 is fatally flawed at the outset. Yes, both are airplanes in the broadest possible sense of the word. That is however where the similarity ends.

 

Whilst the A-10 is an airborne attacking platform, the Kamov should be equated with a 100% All-Terrain IFV and employed/treated as such for maximum efficiency.

 

MBT's aside, there is nothing that an A-10 can kill that a Kamov cannot with it's 30mm Shipunov. When the shite hits the fan, I'd rather be well-hidden, 4 km downrange and dispensing 30mm death-pellets for a guaranteed kill, knowing that the enemy has absolutely no idea where I am as when those shells land I've already relocated and ready to plink your buddy who is still wondering what happened to the Bradley that spontaneously combusted next to him......Not so with the A-10. One platoon of MANPAD's and it's toast.

 

I'm reasonable certain that the Kamov is a helluva lot more accurate sending rounds downrange at 4km than the A-10. Biggest difference is that the kamov stays at 4km. The A-10 however is at that stage already way past danger-close and just waiting for a fistful of hurt from below.

[ZaltysZ]

yeah i guess i see the point in moving chopper being more capable of defensive action than hovering one, plus the fuel saving measure, plus harder target to hit instead if it hovers..but still, the chopper is moving TOWARDS the target so i'm thinking isn't it counter-productive to do that when you are going into the enemy range to hit you?..

 

As far as I remember, pilots used to be obsessed about 2 things: 1) engine failure while hovering results in not so successful landing 2) launching weapons while hovering has greater risk for stalling one of engines due to exhausts of missiles/rockets. After that comes all other dangers of hovering: artillery strikes, flanking guy with RPG in the bushes, higher heat signature due to more power used in hover, easy of aiming at static target, delay between being static and moving (i.e. how quickly you can get out of here).

 

In addition, some helicopter like Mi24 have design issues, which make hovering attacks problematic. I.e. Mi24 wings interfere with downwash and make hovering difficult while carrying combat load.

[Kaktus29]

@viper.. i agree.. i mean if AD are down than A-10 is more lethal on the basis of ordnance it carries-it carries much more, but if there is AD lurking below i think A-10 is in bigger danger especially if he is to use his cannon to inflict damage.. if he is using mavericks and other guided munition its different, but cannon speaking i think choppers are better suited to sneak up on the enemy and kill them and hide back into the ground.. A-10 cannot do that.. everybody will see it by looking up in the sky.. and since manpads are proficient its easy to attack it during his gun run.. a chopper much harder to hit since you can't see it with your naked eye at 2-4 km hugging the terrain..while you can easily hear and see the A-10 above you .. and he will have to come in danger zone after each gun pass ..

[Kaktus29]

@zaltysZ .. good points.. i agree, .. only problem i have is Hinds don't do any of those in DCS)) they will move towards the target after firing first missile, then second, then thirds, then switch to guns guns guns and then be blown away by returning fire of the tanks etc..

 

why is AI so stupid and not circle around for another pass at safe distance and until it uses ALL guided munition and only after that go for other weapon use -like guns ..its beyond me how stupid AI is..

 

and also, i guess others make good points as well, about whether you are flying above friendly forces thus knowing safely you have your ass covered or not.. if you are flying above friendly forces i guess its safer to hover or move minimally while if not then speed is everything and you have to race across the target or close to the target and wreck havoc in the hopes havoc doesn't wreck you first))

[Yellonet]

I'm reasonable certain that the Kamov is a helluva lot more accurate sending rounds downrange at 4km than the A-10. Biggest difference is that the kamov stays at 4km. The A-10 however is at that stage already way past danger-close and just waiting for a fistful of hurt from below.

Yep, the GAU-8 is more or less an area effect weapon, that's why it needs to have such a high rate of fire.

The 2A42 is intended to shoot fewer rounds, but to have a higher percentage of them on target.

Of course this difference has more to do with the two guns respective platforms and how they are mounted, but still.