Home
Register
Log in
One thing americans(and other nato people) pride themselves in is mast mounted radars, and put a massive amount of emphasis on shooting behind cover with only the mast radar detecting targets. Russians don't seem to care about this tactic, because the Ka-52's radar is nose mounted, while there isn't much effort to install the arbalet radar on the mi-28? Why is that?
Ka-52 in Russian Air Force
limb- Posts : 138
Points : 146
Join date : 2020-09-17
miketheterrible
miketheterrible- Posts : 5659
Points : 5633
Join date : 2016-11-06
limb wrote:One thing americans(and other nato people) pride themselves in is mast mounted radars, and put a massive amount of emphasis on shooting behind cover with only the mast radar detecting targets. Russians don't seem to care about this tactic, because the Ka-52's radar is nose mounted, while there isn't much effort to install the arbalet radar on the mi-28? Why is that?
Different tasks.
Mi-28NM has mast mounted radar
Isos- Posts : 7350
Points : 7336
Join date : 2015-11-06
With their mast mounted radar they were mostly kept away from hot wars most of the times and let A-10 do the work.
Mountains will be full of manpads in a conflict so it's not really that smart to use such tactics.
Mountains will be full of manpads in a conflict so it's not really that smart to use such tactics.
GarryB- Posts : 28583
Points : 29113
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
Lots of vibration to deal with with mast mounted sights.
And the idea that some helicopter can hover behind a tree or bush or building and scan for targets is bullshit.
Ironically their mast mounted radars and Russian radars... mast mounted and otherwise... work roughly the same way... you pop up and expose your radar... whether it is above the rotor or in the nose... you remain there for 3-4 seconds and scan and then you drop down behind cover while your onboard computer analyses the returns and starts identifying and marking targets.
The most common object on a battlefield that a helicopter could hide behind in a real war would be either a tree or a building.
If the target is a late model Russian tank even it is going to detect the rotor blades and huge IR signature of the helicopter... even behind the tree...
The point is that the air defence units operating with that tank is going to detect it because it is scanning with a radar... no matter how dense that tree is or the building... or whatever that helicopter is going to be in danger.
Soviet air defence forces are formidable... and there does not exist a sort of tree that you can hide behind that will hide you from every direction... the radar on the Apache can only view about 70-80 degrees forward when looking for targets on the ground. The 360 degree scan is for targets in the air.
That means hiding behind a tree it can look forward lets say 90 degrees... but in doing so it is emitting radar at Russian forces that will be networked... air defences behind the helicopter will immediately be alerted if they were not already aware of the helicopters presence.
What I am trying to say is that sitting behind cover looking for threats sounds like a good idea, but when your side canopy windows can be penetrated by AK fire using standard ball ammo operating that low is dangerous...
In comparison the Mi-28NM has side windows that can withstand 14.5mm HMG rounds fired from 5m.
And the idea that some helicopter can hover behind a tree or bush or building and scan for targets is bullshit.
Ironically their mast mounted radars and Russian radars... mast mounted and otherwise... work roughly the same way... you pop up and expose your radar... whether it is above the rotor or in the nose... you remain there for 3-4 seconds and scan and then you drop down behind cover while your onboard computer analyses the returns and starts identifying and marking targets.
The most common object on a battlefield that a helicopter could hide behind in a real war would be either a tree or a building.
If the target is a late model Russian tank even it is going to detect the rotor blades and huge IR signature of the helicopter... even behind the tree...
The point is that the air defence units operating with that tank is going to detect it because it is scanning with a radar... no matter how dense that tree is or the building... or whatever that helicopter is going to be in danger.
Soviet air defence forces are formidable... and there does not exist a sort of tree that you can hide behind that will hide you from every direction... the radar on the Apache can only view about 70-80 degrees forward when looking for targets on the ground. The 360 degree scan is for targets in the air.
That means hiding behind a tree it can look forward lets say 90 degrees... but in doing so it is emitting radar at Russian forces that will be networked... air defences behind the helicopter will immediately be alerted if they were not already aware of the helicopters presence.
What I am trying to say is that sitting behind cover looking for threats sounds like a good idea, but when your side canopy windows can be penetrated by AK fire using standard ball ammo operating that low is dangerous...
In comparison the Mi-28NM has side windows that can withstand 14.5mm HMG rounds fired from 5m.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 7224
Points : 7373
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
George1, zepia, zardof, LMFS, Hole and TMA1 like this post
LMFS- Posts : 3285
Points : 3287
Join date : 2018-03-03
The southern military district army aviation regiment received a batch of new Ka-52 alligator helicopters
The southern military district army aviation regiment based in the Rostov region has received seven new Ka-52 alligator combat helicopters. In the near future, the first scheduled flights of Alligators will take place under the combat training program, the press service of the southern military DISTRICT reports.
The helicopters were transported in disassembled form by Il-76 military transport aircraft from the territory of the manufacturing plant to the military airfield, where they are finally assembled.
https://aviation21.ru/polk-armejskoj-aviacii-yuvo-poluchil-partiyu-novyx-vertolyotov-ka-52-alligator/
The southern military district army aviation regiment based in the Rostov region has received seven new Ka-52 alligator combat helicopters. In the near future, the first scheduled flights of Alligators will take place under the combat training program, the press service of the southern military DISTRICT reports.
The helicopters were transported in disassembled form by Il-76 military transport aircraft from the territory of the manufacturing plant to the military airfield, where they are finally assembled.
https://aviation21.ru/polk-armejskoj-aviacii-yuvo-poluchil-partiyu-novyx-vertolyotov-ka-52-alligator/
George1 and dino00 like this post
George1- Posts : 15929
Points : 16426
Join date : 2011-12-22
Location : Greece
Two prototypes of the upgraded Ka-52M helicopters were sent for testing. Work on the new helicopters was completed last year.
This was told by the Managing Director of the Progress Arsenyev Aviation Company Yuri Denisenkov as saying
https://tass.com/defense/1254839
This was told by the Managing Director of the Progress Arsenyev Aviation Company Yuri Denisenkov as saying
https://tass.com/defense/1254839
medo, dino00 and LMFS like this post
GarryB- Posts : 28583
Points : 29113
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
One thing americans(and other nato people) pride themselves in is mast mounted radars, and put a massive amount of emphasis on shooting behind cover with only the mast radar detecting targets. Russians don't seem to care about this tactic, because the Ka-52's radar is nose mounted, while there isn't much effort to install the arbalet radar on the mi-28? Why is that?
Would also add that hovering behind a ridge or a hill is one thing but hiding behind a tree or building is something else... the rotor blades and rather powerful turbine engines helicopters have would give away their position on any commanders thermal sight in any Russian armoured vehicle... now if that vehicle is a tank then an APFSDS round through the centre of mass of the tree or building has a certain chance of penetrating that tree or building and exiting the rear at an enormous speed that would rip through any helicopter of any type.
Seeing the mast poke out the top a commander of a modern Russian tank could lase the tree and add perhaps 10m to the range and fire a HEFRAG shell with an ANIET fuse and airburst a HE round directly above the helicopters rotor and totally demolish it.
30mm and 57mm round with laser initiated airburst fuses will enable a much wider range of vehicles to do the same... but remember a tree is concealment but not cover... even a rifle calibre machine gun or HMG rounds are dangerous coming through a tree... and targets off to each side might see you anyway.
Certainly local units will hear you.
Groups straining to hear drones should have no problem detecting and tracking helicopters...
And of course the radars in fighter aircraft and AWACS platforms will pick you up too.
Before experience in Afghanistan it was western doctrine to sneak around and hide behind things and hover at standoff distance to engage targets... but a hovering target is an easy target for anything on the ground and just because you are attacking one unit ahead of you that does not mean there are no hostile forces nearby that you have alerted because you are big and noisy.
Even a guy with an AK is a threat to most western helicopters, but they have RPKs and PKMs and bigger weapons as well.
The west claims the Soviet habit of flying around with the Hind and diving attacks on targets was supposedly because the Hind is underpowered and needs wing lift to remain airborne.
This is of course nonsense... the Hind is rather better powered than any western attack helicopter... it flys forward while operating just for the same reason other aircraft do... a moving target is harder to hit and covers more ground while moving.
Rather than roving tank killers like western attack helicopters, the Soviet helicopters have been more about inserting small groups of troops or recovering them, but also infantry support where the troops get pinned down then gunships are called in to help... the Su-25 is very similar and as such for most of its operational life has been mostly armed with unguided rockets and small to medium sized dumb bombs and of course cannon fire.
JohninMK- Posts : 8633
Points : 8726
Join date : 2015-06-16
Location : England
magnumcromagnon and LMFS like this post
limb- Posts : 138
Points : 146
Join date : 2020-09-17
Im currently arguing with westerners who claim that Russian helicopters can be easily destroyed by NATO fighters in a conflict because they can be easily detected by modern US AWACS radar, even at ground level. i told him that the Ka-52s and other russian helos have DIRCM which will make them very difficult to destroy with IR guided missiles, and he responded that modern AMRAAMs and Meteors can easily destroy any helicopter, not matter how close it is to the ground. Jamming and russian IADS notwithstanding, how easy would it be for an ARH missile to destroy a helicopter thats 3-5m of the ground? Can AWACS really easily detect helos?
miketheterrible- Posts : 5659
Points : 5633
Join date : 2016-11-06
Yes they can. Just like ground based radar in lower altitude detection can as well. But using AWACS to destroy helicopters is a ridiculous notion since AWACS aren't as numerous as helicopters are, and are rarely if ever used to track helicopters.
It's fanboys throwing whatever stupid excuse to think such an event will happen in order to try and feel superior. But these are people with no experience or knowledge of military conflicts.
It's fanboys throwing whatever stupid excuse to think such an event will happen in order to try and feel superior. But these are people with no experience or knowledge of military conflicts.
limb- Posts : 138
Points : 146
Join date : 2020-09-17
miketheterrible wrote:Yes they can. Just like ground based radar in lower altitude detection can as well. But using AWACS to destroy helicopters is a ridiculous notion since AWACS aren't as numerous as helicopters are, and are rarely if ever used to track helicopters.
It's fanboys throwing whatever stupid excuse to think such an event will happen in order to try and feel superior. But these are people with no experience or knowledge of military conflicts.
They say All NATO fighters have to do is fire their AMRAAMs and AWACS will guide them, since AWACS has the computer power can lock on to dozens of targets.
miketheterrible- Posts : 5659
Points : 5633
Join date : 2016-11-06
limb wrote:miketheterrible wrote:Yes they can. Just like ground based radar in lower altitude detection can as well. But using AWACS to destroy helicopters is a ridiculous notion since AWACS aren't as numerous as helicopters are, and are rarely if ever used to track helicopters.
It's fanboys throwing whatever stupid excuse to think such an event will happen in order to try and feel superior. But these are people with no experience or knowledge of military conflicts.
They say All NATO fighters have to do is fire their AMRAAMs and AWACS will guide them, since AWACS has the computer power can lock on to dozens of targets.
First off, it isn't that easy. Because if it was, it would be used in every instance. Second of all, AWACS are a massive target and would be first to be shot out of the sky. Jets like MiG-31 are designed to counter such aircraft at very long ranges (longer than what an amraam and other stupid ass named missile has). Also, it's if the AWACS picks up the target and has full coverage of it and it doesn't just disappear from radar view.
These people are stupid and like I said, will say anything. Afterwords, when you counter their argument, they will come up with something else. Then again. Then again. They will put up perfect conditions for everything they talk about. Which isn't reality.
Why waste time with such people other than to fill this thread up with theirs or your own bullshit?
limb- Posts : 138
Points : 146
Join date : 2020-09-17
Yeah, we never saw the coalition using AWACS to destroy iraqi helis, which raises some eyebrows. Anyway the standard canned reponse from westerners whn you mention AWACs destruction is that Russian fighters are too few and primitive compared to the nato ubermench hordes of fighters.miketheterrible wrote:limb wrote:miketheterrible wrote:Yes they can. Just like ground based radar in lower altitude detection can as well. But using AWACS to destroy helicopters is a ridiculous notion since AWACS aren't as numerous as helicopters are, and are rarely if ever used to track helicopters.
It's fanboys throwing whatever stupid excuse to think such an event will happen in order to try and feel superior. But these are people with no experience or knowledge of military conflicts.
They say All NATO fighters have to do is fire their AMRAAMs and AWACS will guide them, since AWACS has the computer power can lock on to dozens of targets.
First off, it isn't that easy. Because if it was, it would be used in every instance. Second of all, AWACS are a massive target and would be first to be shot out of the sky. Jets like MiG-31 are designed to counter such aircraft at very long ranges (longer than what an amraam and other stupid ass named missile has). Also, it's if the AWACS picks up the target and has full coverage of it and it doesn't just disappear from radar view.
These people are stupid and like I said, will say anything. Afterwords, when you counter their argument, they will come up with something else. Then again. Then again. They will put up perfect conditions for everything they talk about. Which isn't reality.
Why waste time with such people other than to fill this thread up with theirs or your own bullshit?
miketheterrible- Posts : 5659
Points : 5633
Join date : 2016-11-06
Their numbers are rather massive and Russia is only country left with a proper dedicated interceptor aircrafts (MiG-31) and they got over 100 of them. Mix in their Su-27 aircrafts and it's lineage, their OTH radar, they will see those AWACS way before those AWACS see any Russian jet or even Russian territory. Russian ground based radar can also help guide Russian weapons to the enemy aircraft as well.
Then again, these are the people who will make up whatever shit like "yeah, well, US has death cannons in space" to win whatever argument. These are fanboys, not military strategists.
Then again, these are the people who will make up whatever shit like "yeah, well, US has death cannons in space" to win whatever argument. These are fanboys, not military strategists.
limb- Posts : 138
Points : 146
Join date : 2020-09-17
miketheterrible wrote:Their numbers are rather massive and Russia is only country left with a proper dedicated interceptor aircrafts (MiG-31) and they got over 100 of them. Mix in their Su-27 aircrafts and it's lineage, their OTH radar, they will see those AWACS way before those AWACS see any Russian jet or even Russian territory. Russian ground based radar can also help guide Russian weapons to the enemy aircraft as well.
Then again, these are the people who will make up whatever shit like "yeah, well, US has death cannons in space" to win whatever argument. These are fanboys, not military strategists.
The most annoying are the self proclaimed fighter pilots or tankers who think they have authority on wether Russian weapons are effective.
Also the answers, are "yeah, well the US is richer" or theres always 400 F-35s being mentioned as if this is an unmanageable number
miketheterrible- Posts : 5659
Points : 5633
Join date : 2016-11-06
limb wrote:miketheterrible wrote:Their numbers are rather massive and Russia is only country left with a proper dedicated interceptor aircrafts (MiG-31) and they got over 100 of them. Mix in their Su-27 aircrafts and it's lineage, their OTH radar, they will see those AWACS way before those AWACS see any Russian jet or even Russian territory. Russian ground based radar can also help guide Russian weapons to the enemy aircraft as well.
Then again, these are the people who will make up whatever shit like "yeah, well, US has death cannons in space" to win whatever argument. These are fanboys, not military strategists.
The most annoying are the self proclaimed fighter pilots or tankers who think they have authority on wether Russian weapons are effective.
They don't exist. Did you ever ask them for proof? I already know the answer. I also dealt with such people and they are usually just liars with no experience and or Sat in a vehicle in Iraq or Afghanistan.
There is a reason why the people who really do have the knowledge, tend to stay quiet. The loud ones who talk shit, are usually full of shit
The US is broke, and their F-35's are so shit they have to re-introduce F-15's for production. Tell them that.
LMFS- Posts : 3285
Points : 3287
Join date : 2018-03-03
No helicopter would be used without fighter cover just to be eliminated trivially by enemy air power, that people need to learn the basics and stop making up scenarios that are ridiculous. Of course a fighter can destroy a helicopter, that works for Western and Russian military basically the same...
Hole- Posts : 3987
Points : 3983
Join date : 2018-03-24
Age : 44
Location : Merkelland
Most of the time russian helicopters will be working under the cover of air defence systems. If the westerners really think they can attack them with fighter jets they will loose a lot of planes.
GarryB and magnumcromagnon like this post
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 7224
Points : 7373
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
Now that the Ka-52 has proven that it can carry Kh-35's, it will be interesting what AAM load outs it could carry. No doubt R-73/74/77, and Igla-S/Verba could be stacked in large pallets and in enormous numbers which will make them useful against swarm UAV's, alongside programmable 30mm shells for it's gun.
The reason why I mentioned the Kh-35 (anti-ship and heli air-to-surface missile) is that the helicopter launched version has slightly greater mass than the R-37M: Kh-35 (610kg) vs R-37M(600kg). So theoretically speaking Ka-52's could carry and launch R-37M's, however because Ka-52's ceiling is limited to 5.5km, R-37M's wouldn't achieve 400km range launched from a relatively low altitude (unless it underwent a modification), but it could still retain a 300km range. Imagine Ka-52's hovering low behind a mountain range with a R-37M on each wing, passively listening to allied radars feeding them radar data. Ka-52's with R-37M's could have amazing ambush potential!
The reason why I mentioned the Kh-35 (anti-ship and heli air-to-surface missile) is that the helicopter launched version has slightly greater mass than the R-37M: Kh-35 (610kg) vs R-37M(600kg). So theoretically speaking Ka-52's could carry and launch R-37M's, however because Ka-52's ceiling is limited to 5.5km, R-37M's wouldn't achieve 400km range launched from a relatively low altitude (unless it underwent a modification), but it could still retain a 300km range. Imagine Ka-52's hovering low behind a mountain range with a R-37M on each wing, passively listening to allied radars feeding them radar data. Ka-52's with R-37M's could have amazing ambush potential!
GarryB- Posts : 28583
Points : 29113
Join date : 2010-03-30
Location : New Zealand
There is no great benefit in Ka-52s carrying long range AAMs, as there is MiG-31s carrying Verba AAMs.
Ka-52s will have a fairly specific set of targets, and enemy fighters will not be in that subset, because in a direct fight a helicopter has all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of a jet fighter.
Helicopters have excellent manouver performance but their low flight speed essentially renders them sitting ducks to fighters and their missiles.
Ka-52s will have a fairly specific set of targets, and enemy fighters will not be in that subset, because in a direct fight a helicopter has all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of a jet fighter.
Helicopters have excellent manouver performance but their low flight speed essentially renders them sitting ducks to fighters and their missiles.
LMFS likes this post
TMA1- Posts : 128
Points : 130
Join date : 2020-11-30
GarryB wrote:There is no great benefit in Ka-52s carrying long range AAMs, as there is MiG-31s carrying Verba AAMs.
Ka-52s will have a fairly specific set of targets, and enemy fighters will not be in that subset, because in a direct fight a helicopter has all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of a jet fighter.
Helicopters have excellent manouver performance but their low flight speed essentially renders them sitting ducks to fighters and their missiles.
i think the a2a danger from helicopters came from when they were harder to detect by fighters decades ago. i have heard that could be dangerous for fighters in certain circumstances.
magnumcromagnon- Posts : 7224
Points : 7373
Join date : 2013-12-05
Location : Pindos ave., Pindosville, Pindosylvania, Pindostan
GarryB wrote:There is no great benefit in Ka-52s carrying long range AAMs, as there is MiG-31s carrying Verba AAMs.
Ka-52s will have a fairly specific set of targets, and enemy fighters will not be in that subset, because in a direct fight a helicopter has all the disadvantages and none of the advantages of a jet fighter.
Helicopters have excellent manouver performance but their low flight speed essentially renders them sitting ducks to fighters and their missiles.
Specifically I was suggesting it in a scenario where a Ka-52 is integrated in to IAD with a few land command posts that passively listens to a set of radars located 10km away from the command posts. All the pieces are well hidden behind dummy foliage designed like a Nakhidka kit, where the Ka-52 is actually on a landing pad besides the command posts hiding behind a mountain range. Once the command posts inform the Ka-52 pilot of OPFOR fighter approach from 200km away, the Ka-52 starts up and hovers 50-100 meters above the canopy but still behind the mountain range, and once the OPFOR fighter is within 150km range, the 2 R-37M's are launched while being remotely guided by radars in the IAD. It's like a point blank attack with a OPFOR fighter having less than a minute before being shot out the sky by a pair R-37M's traveling at Mach 6.
|
|
|