Jump to content

Ka-50 VS A-10


Recommended Posts

I'm not trying to offend - it's simply a fact ... MiG radar is made to deliver weapons on target, not to search for targets - so it's ability to perform search is pretty poor. You probably know this yourself.

The F-15 is not a defensive aircraft - it is offensive, and has been built to bring everything it needs with it to someone else's backyard ... ie. it must have good search, good weapons delivery, BVR EID, etc.

 

In general IIRC at short ranges radars are not too limited, even when they don't have doppler filtering.

 

Sorry, but I never said that MiG-29 radar is better then F-15's one. I just mentioned two things: there is filtering in BVR mode and that on short WVR distances MIG's radar has no limitation at all then tracking target.

So why you guys start offend little MiGgy?

 

Right, you will see a target with a big vector initially, then this vector will become slower as the radar incorporates target motion instead of just doppler shift into the calculation :) But you WILL see it on radar, and IIRC it will probably be even ID'ed as a heli.

 

Now, yes, I understand what you're saying. What I'm trying to tell you is that filter implementation on MiG-29 is very poor compared to F-15 when it comes to search modes. The F-15's tightest filter is around 90kph, not 200, and in addition other filtering methods and search methods are used also to decrease the possibility of notching the radar. Such technology is also used on AMRAAM, and maybe some of it is on the newest Sparrows, but obviously not as advanced since Sparrow production ceased a while ago.

 

 

Following your logic you will see a target on screen with subsonic speed, wich will be moveless instead :)

 

Of course filtering is used for the real target speed. Than I mentioned about filtering in BVR do and what a MiG's radar real perfomance is, I was trying to set you on the right track. Filtering was used in BVR not because MiG is a piece of crap/junk, I believe that there was other reasons.

 

Yes, you can shoot it. Certainly the missile will have trouble - as you get close to the ground, Pk decreases, but is not zero. The fuze can be protected by using a simple flight path shaping so as to dive on the target at the last moment - it is not perfect, but such capability was already studies in 1953.

 

Although, IIRC ... there was an engagement in GF1 where an F-15C dove onto a MiG-29's tail and shot it down with an AIM-7 ... the missile was fired from 100' AGL, and the target (According to the pilot) was at 50' AGL ... however I'm not sure if I will be able to find the source for that incident again, so feel free to ignore :P

 

Tracking lamborgini - ok, may be yes, shooting - no. You probably wont even get permission to launch, because rocket seeker not able to get stable lock. The land itself is one of the best ECM ever made, especially for non-active seekers. Actually SARH missiles have very poor effectiveness at very low altitudes, thats why you need to use heat-seeking missiles. The radio proximity fuse will blow up AIM-7 if it comes close by wires/ground. It wont score direct hit anyway.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can quote the relevant section if you like.

 

Ok, this is from "Strike Eagle" by William Smallwood. An F-15E flight had been vectored by AWACS to some special forces that was threatened by some Iraqi helicopters. It was february 13 1991, Capt Tim Bennett is the pilot and Dan Bakke the WSO.

 

Bennett: There was a lot of stuff up there that wasn't good, but we're ramping over there in mil power going about 600 knots. Then, when we're about 50 miles out, Dan get's contact on the radar.

Bakke: On two or three helicopters.

[...]

Bakke: I called AWACS and I reconfirmed with them that we have the helicopters. Actually what we have on the radar is their rotor spinning.

Bennett: We aren't getting an air speed readout yet on them. We are pretty sure they are sitting on the ground. We said, 'Okay, let's go in there'. If he [bakke] can get them on the targeting pod, we'll let a bomb go. [...] Then, at around fifteen miles, Dan's got them in the targeting pod.

Bakke: We didn't make a [radar] map; you can cue the targeting pod from the air-to-air radar. You can get a designation just using the pod. I'm looking solely through the pod now. It's infrared and the helicopters are hot and the rotors look like discs. I have two of the three, and we're assuming they are on the ground.[...] We go in, get a release cue, Bennett drops a long ball [bomb] and starts a left-hand turn so that I can track the target.

[...]

Bennett: Meanwhile, I'm looking at the radar because he is concentrating [on the image in the pod]. About ten seconds after the bomb comes off, I start seeing an air speed readout on the radar. I'm thinking, this thing is moving; go back into air-to-air and bring up an AIM-9. Meanwhile, Dan is tracking it big time, but I'm thinking, shit, this bomb is never going to make it.

[...]

Bakke: We jink off to the left and it appears to me that this guy is moving. What in fact happened, according to the guys on the ground, is that the helicopter was at 800 to 1000 feet when the bomb impacted. It hit just forward of the center of the rotors, right in the cockpit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not trying to offend - it's simply a fact ... MiG radar is made to deliver weapons on target, not to search for targets - so it's ability to perform search is pretty poor. You probably know this yourself.

Of course. MiG's must act with external target designation.

 

 

The F-15's tightest filter is around 90kph, not 200, and in addition other filtering methods and search methods are used also to decrease the possibility of notching the radar. Such technology is also used on AMRAAM, and maybe some of it is on the newest Sparrows, but obviously not as advanced since Sparrow production ceased a while ago.

This was I plan to say :) The filtering exist in BVR modes of all aircraft-based radars and F-15 too. But I dont considered that in case F-15 filter algorithm can allow to see such target.

Thnx arneh for the quotation.

 

But we still have one problem, the biggest one - composite blades.

 

 

PS Please explain me the IIRC encription and AGL units

Open your eyes, open yor mind... ©Guano Apes

Sorry for my bad english.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, sorry!

IIRC = If I Recall Correctly, AGL = Above Aground Level, as opposed to barometric altitude.

 

There is also other algorithms that can help eliminate this filter, eg. you can consider the radiation spectrum of the target return. A man-made object usually has a narrow-band reflection (very little frequency scattering) and natular ground will usually have wide-band reflection (a lot of frequency scattering) ... of course it is not perfect, but Pk is a magical number that can be made bigger by every little trick you add to help your radar :)

 

F-15 Radar is already impressive. Imagine F-22 and F-35 :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC = If I Recall Correctly

AFAIK sounds better to me :)

 

F-15 Radar is already impressive. Imagine F-22 and F-35 :)

Why all those F-14 was scrapped? I believe that in large formations they was able to burn their enemy to the death, just by putting it into STT lock :))))))

Open your eyes, open yor mind... ©Guano Apes

Sorry for my bad english.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

F-14 was scrapped because it was too expensive to maintain. It used a missile system which was incompatible with any other aircraft, so it had to have its own missiles and technicians trained to handle those missiles, it required many hours of maintenance per flight hour, and it was just plain getting old. It was also no longer necessary.

 

These days, other than range, the AIM-120 will do the AIM-54C's job very well. Range is significant for intercept though, especially when we're talking supersonic missiles ...

 

 

The NAVY saved money by getting F-18E's for the time being, allowing them to standardize to a new, more advanced fighter. F-14 has its place in legend, all it needs if F-35 engines and new airframe to be once more a 'superplane' like it was back in its time, but its replacement for now is the F-18 and whatever else the NAVY cooks up .. there was talk of specialized F-22 but it was cancelled. Instead they will have F-35's.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course they didn't fire any. It wasn't exactly a target rich environment during Desert Storm. Of course, we didn't know it would be so easy to gain air superiority, or we wouldn't have bother with the Stingers.

 

On another note, one of the pilots that I'm working with right now has done fairly extensive training with Stingers on the AH-64D Longbow Apache, but they are certainly not mounted in combat at this time as there is no threat.

 

Keep in mind that these are Stingers we're talking about, not Sidewinders. No U.S. Air Force aircraft mounts Stingers. Other than "proof of concept" for USMC aircraft, I've never seen a helicopter fire a Sidewinder. So the argument that you're taking ordnance away from someone who could make better us of it is invalid.

 

U.S. Army doctrine is pretty clear that A2A combat is something to be avoided if at all possible. Stingers are meant as a defensive weapon against other helicopters, and are certainly not meant to be used offensively against fast movers.

 

It's also widely understood that the use of helicopters in an environment where your side does not have air superiority is not a very wise move.

 

AlphaOneSix, I think you miss understand me. As far as I'm concern, you have the knowledge, I don't. I was admitting that if you tell me thats the way it is then I believe you. I do not think that any helicopter flies with the AIM-9, it was just the first missile that came to mind. The questions at the end, I was not being argumentative just curious man. No need to defend your point, I was not arguing it.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7096dp3.jpg

 

 

It is an exception to the rule, but I've been on an LHD when they have armed AH-1's with Aim-9's for ship defence going through the Straits of Hormuz. (AV-8B's were not on the deployment due to grounding)

The code is probaly in Russian anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

AlphaOneSix, I think you miss understand me. As far as I'm concern, you have the knowledge, I don't. I was admitting that if you tell me thats the way it is then I believe you. I do not think that any helicopter flies with the AIM-9, it was just the first missile that came to mind. The questions at the end, I was not being argumentative just curious man. No need to defend your point, I was not arguing it.

 

For someone "without the knowledge" you sure seem to make a lot of clearly unargumented statements. Like:

 

This argument again? Guys No matter how many photos you have seen or web sites you have read, it will never happen. Unless you fly a combat helicopter IRL and got photos and videos to prove a helicopter can carry and employ a live A2A missile it will never happen. Helicopter will never carry A2A weapons in combat.

 

And now you say again that you "do not think that any helicopter flies with the AIM-9" even if it was clearly stated that no U.S. Army helicopter carries AIM-9s because they use Stingers and in another post that the U.S. Marine Corps uses AIM-9s and not Stingers on their Cobras.

 

Checking something on the net before making such bold statements might be helpful in the long run :)

i386DX40@42 MHz w/i387 CP, 4 MB RAM (8*512 kB), Trident 8900C 1 MB w/16-bit RAMDAC ISA, Quantum 340 MB UDMA33, SB 16, DOS 6.22 w/QEMM + Win3.11CE, Quickshot 1btn 2axis, Numpad as hat. 2 FPH on a good day, 1 FPH avg.

 

DISCLAIMER: My posts are still absolutely useless. Just finding excuses not to learn the F-14 (HB's Swansong?).

 

Annoyed by my posts? Please consider donating. Once the target sum is reached, I'll be off to somewhere nice I promise not to post from. I'd buy that for a dollar!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Checking something on the net before making such bold statements might be helpful in the long run :)

Man, I don't have to go to the net to find info about weapons loads, weapons systems and most aircraft (US inventory), I just need to go to work and find first hand. But then I would not be able to hear peoples knowledge and opinions from around the world. I got the info man, but is no fun just talking to coworkers about it. Most of them don't care that much about aviation and care even less about video games about aviation.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Besides what is the point to be in an forum if you are not going to argue with people. It's that the hole point to forums anyway? People sharing ideas and then someone disagrees. I guess I must clarify, when I said I did not have "the knowledge", I refer to the fact that I don't work on helicopters, Alphasixone does (AFAIK), I can't compare the knowledge I get by asking people about their jobs to working on the aircraft itself. If I ask 15 guys that work helicopters if they ever seen them with A2A weapons and 10 tell me no and five have no idea what the hell I'm talking about, I can only believe them and deduct than it would not happen. Many of them laugh at the idea. Alpha said it could , then I stood and stand now corrected, but ijozic, I don't need to check the net for info. I just stick my foot in my moth, say some thing wrong and someone will catch it and we will move on, part of the fun man.

 

P.S.

I think the lack of nicotine is getting to me, I sound very arrogant and annoying, sorry, I guess I really want a cigarette.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well i have been watching and people talk about air to air on helicopter for a while now.

I myself was a cobra crewchief 6 yrs and apachee for 2 1/2 while yes air to air sys. can be mounted. never in the hole time i was active duty did i see one hav the systems in the field. Hell you could mount a hellfire on a bus but why would you. The roll of a rotor wing is not air to air. close air support and tank busting thats what they do. Have ? for thoughs who think air to air is needed on a apachee. For what shoting down a 29 at 25000 ft (not). choppers hide and kill they dont go looking to shot down something move at 550 nots. and if they need air to air that 30 on there nose will do just fine if the pilot can see it he can kill it. Get over the proving ground crap that never sees the line. like i said you can mount anything on anything but is it practical? Sometimes the answer is nope P.S. Dont believe everything you see on the net lolol

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the Iran-Iraq war there were several helicopter vs helicopter battles. About 10 Cobras, 6 Hinds and various other helicopters were shot down in these air-to-air combats.

 

I'm sure both the Cobra and Hind pilots would have prefered to use air-to-air missiles if they had the option, instead of having to use the AG and unguided weapons (the Cobras seem to have gotten many of their Hind kills with TOW missiles, while the Hinds used unguided rockets and guns).

 

I agree that helicopters going hunting for aircraft isn't very likely. But if you're going to get into combat with enemy helicopters anyway then I think carrying air-to-air-missiles could be useful and give an edge. And if such a conflicted developed again where helicopters faced enemy helicopters frequently then I'm sure both sides quickly would add air-to-air missiles to their helicopters, even if they don't carry them now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I myself was a cobra crewchief 6 yrs and apachee for 2 1/2 while yes air to air sys. can be mounted. never in the hole time i was active duty did i see one hav the systems in the field.

 

 

For a 45+ year old American, your English is atrocious. I've never heard of a "21st Attack Battalion". And even if you're not lying about your service, of course you never saw any A2A weapons mounted, because that was just a glimmer in someone's eye in the 1980's.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

During the Iran-Iraq war there were several helicopter vs helicopter battles. About 10 Cobras, 6 Hinds and various other helicopters were shot down in these air-to-air combats.

 

I'm sure both the Cobra and Hind pilots would have prefered to use air-to-air missiles if they had the option, instead of having to use the AG and unguided weapons (the Cobras seem to have gotten many of their Hind kills with TOW missiles, while the Hinds used unguided rockets and guns).

 

I agree that helicopters going hunting for aircraft isn't very likely. But if you're going to get into combat with enemy helicopters anyway then I think carrying air-to-air-missiles could be useful and give an edge. And if such a conflicted developed again where helicopters faced enemy helicopters frequently then I'm sure both sides quickly would add air-to-air missiles to their helicopters, even if they don't carry them now.

 

currently the missiles air-air of combat helicopters, are slow for get aircraft??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ED Team

From the AIRCREW TRAINING MANUAL ATTACK HELICOPTER, AH-64D:

 

TASK 1153

Perform Actions on Contact

 

Fighters. When in an area where threat fighters are known or suspected to be operating, fly the helicopter at NOE altitude as much as possible. Upon sighting or sensing a fighter, try to mask the helicopter. If the fighter is alone and executes a dive, turn the helicopter toward the attacker and descend. This maneuver will cause the fighter pilot to increase his attack angle. Depending on the fighter's dive angle, it may be advantageous to turn sharply and maneuver away once the attacker is committed. The fighter pilot will then have to break off his attack to recover from the maneuver. Once the fighter breaks off his attack, maneuver the helicopter to take advantage of terrain, vegetation, and shadow for concealment.

 

Source:

 

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/tc-1-251-cover.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes my grammer sucks

 

Well hav 2 honarable discharges Iknow what i did and what i was dont hav to prove that to anyone. they tested air to air. found to be impractical . becouse it is, and im sure there are a lot of untis you have not heard of. But the 2500 a month a get for getting hurt while in service of my country. Says im a vet. So i guess im a vet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they tested air to air. found to be impractical . becouse it is

 

You were a crew chief, and I was a crew chief. Crew chiefs are not qualified to determine what is and what is not practical concerning air-to-air combat. Also, tests done in the 1980's really have no bearing on what's happening today, just as my experience in the 1990's has very little bearing on what is going on today.

 

and im sure there are a lot of untis you have not heard of.

 

That is where you are wrong. If it is an AH-64 unit, I've heard of it. If it is/was a Cobra unit, I've may or may not have heard of it, but chances are, I did. You didn't list an AH-64 battalion, and none of the Cobras you worked on (according to your list of units) were capable of air-to-air, so I'm not sure where your experience comes from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they tested air to air. found to be impractical . becouse it is,

 

Maybe for Army AH-1's, however for USMC Ah-1W's it is used (albeit infrequently)

 

http://forums.eagle.ru/showpost.php?p=205505&postcount=5

 

this was in '89 BTW

 

http://www.aircav.com/cobra/ahgal09/ah1w-037.html

 

http://www.aircav.com/cobra/ahgal09/ah1w-036.html

 

http://www.aircav.com/cobra/ahgal09/ah1w-038.html

 

In ' 87

 

http://www.aircav.com/cobra/ahgal10/ah1t-015.html

 

Sidearm Training Missile:

 

http://www.aircav.com/cobra/ahgal11/ah1-017.html

The code is probaly in Russian anyway.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...