Reasoning for the Ka-50 cannon mounting.

[Flanker15]

Does anyone know why the KA-50 was designed with it's cannon mounted into the fuselage instead on a nose turret? The Mi-28 mounts the same cannon on a turret and is the same general size as the KA-50. Is it because controlling a turret would be too hard for a single pilot or is it for balance or streamlining?

[Yellonet]

Balance coupled with the size of the chopper I'd say.

[Mugatu]

Good question, could also be a space issue due to the retractable landing gear and it being a tricycle config.

[EvilBivol-1]

Mainly to keep the cannon close to the CG, which helps maximize accuracy and minimize other recoil problems. The Mi-28's nose mount is reportedly much less accurate, especially when firing off center.

[Eagle Driver]

I read that it was for accuracy. They chose to give the helo itself agility and used a more fixed cannon, which results in a higher degree of accuracy that the Apache's chaingun for example. I think they said the Ka-50 itself could turn at a similar rate to the Apache's turret, seems fishy to me.

[airea]

Is Ka-50's cannon fixed? I thought it was somehow movable? Should we have to rotate the chopper for targeting?

[159th_Viper]

To Quote:

 

"The integrated 30mm cannon is semi-rigidly fixed on the helicopter's side, movable only slightly in elevation and azimuth. The aircraft's agility allows the weapon control system to turn (the entire helicopter and) the cannon at the target acquired in the pilot's helmet sight about as fast as the cannon turret of the Apache or the Mil-28 turns. The semi-rigid mounting improves the cannon's accuracy, giving the 30mm a longer practical range and better hit ratio at medium ranges than with a free-turning turret mount."

[RvETito]

Some info here- Concept development.

 

Angles of deflection:

- azimuth- -2°30'...+9°

- elevation- +3°30'...-37°

[Dmut]

in order to reach maximum accuracy when firing a gun, you have to mount it on base, as stable as it's possible.

[arneh]

The aircraft's agility allows the weapon control system to turn (the entire helicopter and) the cannon at the target acquired in the pilot's helmet sight about as fast as the cannon turret of the Apache or the Mil-28 turns.

 

While I don't doubt the Ka-50 is very agile, I do doubt it can turn the helicopter as fast as the Apache's gun can slew the gun, because that's really fast! Check around 6:15 in this clip:

[Yellonet]

Ka-50 would own the AH-64 in gunzo at medium to long range, and in close range it may be 50/50 between the two due to the manueverability of the Ka-50.

The gun on the Apache is just for spray and pray, just watch some of the videos on youtube...

[Yo-Yo]

While I don't doubt the Ka-50 is very agile, I do doubt it can turn the helicopter as fast as the Apache's gun can slew the gun, because that's really fast! Check around 6:15 in this clip:

 

 

There's a big difference between 2A42 gun with its 980 m/s and .39 kg shell and M230 with its 790 m/s and .24 kg shell. The recoil of 2A42 is two times greater.

[Force_Feedback]

The reason why is because the gun gives a 5000 kg recoil (because it's a BMP-2 gun basically). And don't underestimate Ka-50s agility, that thing can really (aka, been there, done that) reach a climb rate of 30 meters/second for 1.5 minutes, with a combat load (I think in Chechnya it was 2x B-8 blocks), and it does all the aerobatic tricks with suspended ordnance models.

However, the only way the ka-50 can turn as fast as the apache cannon is in the pitch, maybe roll axes, thw yaw rate, judging from videos, takes more time to build up.

[Yellonet]

The reason why is because the gun gives a 5000 kg recoil (because it's a BMP-2 gun basically). And don't underestimate Ka-50s agility, that thing can really (aka, been there, done that) reach a climb rate of 30 meters/second for 1.5 minutes, with a combat load (I think in Chechnya it was 2x B-8 blocks), and it does all the aerobatic tricks with suspended ordnance models.

However, the only way the ka-50 can turn as fast as the apache cannon is in the pitch, maybe roll axes, thw yaw rate, judging from videos, takes more time to build up.

On the other hand you should in most situations not be so close to the enemy that you'd need a turret gun, the intended use for the Ka-50's gun is likely to stay at range and bombard the target with accurate fire, which the combination of a long barrel, big rounds and stable platform seems well suited for.

[Groove]

980 m/s and .39 kg shell

 

Thats impressive V0 velocitiy. Yo-yo do you have a ballistic chart for 1000 and 2000 meters ?

[Yellonet]

Muahahaha

 

There's a big difference between 2A42 gun with its 980 m/s and .39 kg shell and M230 with its 790 m/s and .24 kg shell. The recoil of 2A42 is two times greater.

Indeed, it's even more than two times greater.

A fast calculation gives that:

 

Muzzle energy

M230 - 75 kJ

2A42 - 187 kJ

 

Edit: stupid yello can't remember formulas :(

[arneh]

There's a big difference between 2A42 gun with its 980 m/s and .39 kg shell and M230 with its 790 m/s and .24 kg shell. The recoil of 2A42 is two times greater.

 

Yes, I am well aware that the Ka-50 gun is both more powerful and more accurate. I was only arguing that I seriously doubt it's able to aim the gun as fast as the Apache, which the quote I replied to claimed.

[RvETito]

Look what happens when the cannon is far from the CG-

 

Note 0:33- what a pitch momentum(on dive) creates the recoil.

[Groove]

Indeed, it's even more than two times greater.

A fast calculation gives that:

 

Muzzle energy

M230 - 150 kJ

2A42 - 375 kJ

 

Yellonet, 150000 Joule amd 375000 Joule seems to be too much for me.

 

How did you calculated this ?

 

Im just curious.

 

Using E=MV2/450400

 

Im getting:

 

Ka-50: 187848 Joule

Ah-64: 75136 Joule

[Yellonet]

Yellonet, 150000 Joule amd 375000 Joule seems to be too much for me.

 

How did you calculated this ?

 

Im just curious.

 

Using E=MV2/450400

 

Im getting:

 

Ka-50: 187848 Joule

Ah-64: 75136 Joule

Hrm... I forget the '/2' :wallbash:

 

It should be (790m/s*790m/s*0,24kg)/2 = 74892 ~ 75 kJ and (980m/s*980m/s*0,39kg)/2 = 187278 ~187 kJ

 

Thanks :)

[Flyby]

arneh...

 

yep, the gun on the Apache swings pretty darn quick. Excellent link btw. I watched several clips of gunships. mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm....hapy guy here. thanks for posting that, arneh. have a beer on me:drink:

Flyby out

[Eagle Driver]

Wow. Agility like that is beyond even the MiG-29OVT... Still, I like Kamov's approach to improve accuracy, quite effective I'd imagine, as agility is always good. Still, from a game aspect I'd really enjoy sitting in an Apache and shooting down a Hokum I'm flying in formation with. Shooting stuff that's not in front of you is always fun.

[Avimimus]

Look what happens when the cannon is far from the CG-

 

Note 0:33- what a pitch momentum(on dive) creates the recoil.

 

AirTito, I recognise this effect takes place on many aircraft but I believe that the rocking of the Mi-35 seen in this video is due to aerodynamic forces (caused by the pilot rapidly adjusting pitch while flying at high speed in order to aim). Anyway, I thought I would voice the second possibility here.

[GGTharos]

That is quite definitely incorrect. The AH-64 will own close up (aiming is much, MUCH easier, and having to point the nose is a chore) and at medium ranges it'll do just fine too; the Apache's gun IS for spraying, but it has nothing to do with praying - this 'spray' is desireable since it will 'snag' more body parts when it comes to its intended target.

And don't think a single round of that won't do a number on a Ka-50 ;) Lastly, the AH-64 can perform a lot of lateral motion with respect to the gun while firing quite accurately. The Ka-50 can do some of that too, but it is far more limited.

Do -not- underestimate the turret. It's there because it works ... and the fact that the weapon was turreted on the Mi-28 should tell you something, too.

 

Ka-50 would own the AH-64 in gunzo at medium to long range, and in close range it may be 50/50 between the two due to the manueverability of the Ka-50.

The gun on the Apache is just for spray and pray, just watch some of the videos on youtube...

[EvilBivol-1]

...and the fact that the weapon was turreted on the Mi-28 should tell you something, too.

It just says Mil designers were too busy making the Apacheski, while Kamov took a much more innovative and smart approach. :)

 

Having a limited range of motion on the cannon isn't a significant problem - remember the Mi-24P gun is completely fixed and is nevertheless very popular among pilots, much more so than the turreted gun of the Mi-24V. Probably has something to do with the HE effect of that big 30mm round. :) For an attack chopper, gun power and accuracy is what matters most and in this regard, the Ka-50 wins hands down.