RuAF aviation, news and development thread

[TR1]

Keep in mind Mi-24P was developed with specific Afghan experience in mind.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fX3t5bg7N4

Look at that monster gun. The fixed solution was necessary with that kind of power and recoil.

Ka-50/52 is perhaps a better compromise, still a very potent weapon (though no twin 30mm), and very solid semi-mobile mount.

[MSphere]

I concur. This thing is similar to GAU-8/A Avenger with short bursts.

[soyuz1917]

Simple physics. Torque is force x lever arm. Mount a turret in the front of the helicopter and the recoil generates a greater torque on the airframe kicking the entire helicopter UP and throwing the whole thing off the target. A gun fixed to the middle of the airframe all else equal will exert a lesser torque on the helicopter and thus not kick the entire bird off its target by quite so much.

One of the biggest reasons crews dont like the Mi-28N is the turreted gun. It is actually NOT a popular feature.

[haavarla]

Right.
We can add on top of this, that the turret and cannon on the Apache was notorious for its high maintanace rate. And it often got those jam or the targeting computer was out of alligment.

Its seen on several vids and reports from Desert Storm and Stan.
Don't know if they improved anything latly though..

[rsetiawan]

Simple physics. Torque is force x lever arm. Mount a turret in the front of the helicopter and the recoil generates a greater torque on the airframe kicking the entire helicopter UP and throwing the whole thing off the target. A gun fixed to the middle of the airframe all else equal will exert a lesser torque on the helicopter and thus not kick the entire bird off its target by quite so much.

One of the biggest reasons crews dont like the Mi-28N is the turreted gun. It is actually NOT a popular feature.

if so why the gun turreted again now on the newer hind

[Levsha]

if so why the gun turreted again now on the newer hind

Touche...

There are hundreds of gun camera videos on youtube, etc, demonstrating the power and accuracy of the 30 mm gun on the Apache. The majority of the gunships produced in Russia in recent years have a turret mounted gun - it's just a more flexible solution.

[soyuz1917]

The 23mm gun on the new Hinds has less kick than the 30mm gun it replaces so its less of an issue and they can go with a turret. The Apache's gun has a much higher rate of fire and fires a much smaller 30mm round which also produces less kick. The high rate of fire makes up for the loss in accuracy by giving you more of a shot gun effect, but the shells are not effective against heavy armor. Its a question of compromise.

[haavarla]

Thats right, its an pros/cons issue.

And what kind of enemy will the Russian Hind fight in the future.
Most likely "soft targets" and not large columes of armour.

The 23mm turret are much more cost effective on rebels and cave men in rough terrain than the huge 30mm armour busting gun.

[Trident]

Touche...

There are hundreds of gun camera videos on youtube, etc, demonstrating the power and accuracy of the 30 mm gun on the Apache. The majority of the gunships produced in Russia in recent years have a turret mounted gun - it's just a more flexible solution.

The recoil issue is very real, it's the main reason why Germany's Tiger variant does not have a gun turret. With the primary mission being anti-tank (questionable decision, but that's another issue entirely) it was found to be so inaccurate in that role, as opposed to making enemy infantry keep their heads down, as to be useless. And that was a gun (GIAT 30M 781) with *considerably* less punch than the 2A42!

[Trident]

Ka-50/52 is perhaps a better compromise, still a very potent weapon (though no twin 30mm), and very solid semi-mobile mount.

Yes, same gun as on the Mi-28 but in a more rigid mount. Having the ability to depress in elevation is a useful compromise, as it at least enables you to fire from a hover.

[Flanker_man]

Yes, same gun as on the Mi-28 but in a more rigid mount. Having the ability to depress in elevation is a useful compromise, as it at least enables you to fire from a hover.

I can remember watching one of the many Ka-50 prototypes displaying at Zhukovsky during one of the MAKS airshows.

Imagine a V-shaped wineglass - with the Ka-50 pointing downwards along the V.

Then have the helicopter travelling around the rim of the glass (still pointing downwards) - and then the point of V travelling down the runway.

That's how the Ka-50 was demonstrating its ability to aim the 30mm cannon at a spot on the ground - whilst circling and travelling laterally.

A bit like the spout of a tornado, with the end of the spout being the target - the agility was very impressive.

Ken

[WinterStars]

The 23mm gun on the new Hinds has less kick than the 30mm gun it replaces so its less of an issue and they can go with a turret. The Apache's gun has a much higher rate of fire and fires a much smaller 30mm round which also produces less kick. The high rate of fire makes up for the loss in accuracy by giving you more of a shot gun effect, but the shells are not effective against heavy armor. Its a question of compromise.

True.
30 x 113 vs 30 x 165

[Twinblade]

I can remember watching one of the many Ka-50 prototypes displaying at Zhukovsky during one of the MAKS airshows.

Imagine a V-shaped wineglass - with the Ka-50 pointing downwards along the V.

Then have the helicopter travelling around the rim of the glass (still pointing downwards) - and then the point of V travelling down the runway.

That's how the Ka-50 was demonstrating its ability to aim the 30mm cannon at a spot on the ground - whilst circling and travelling laterally.

A bit like the spout of a tornado, with the end of the spout being the target - the agility was very impressive.

Ken

Is there any video available for that demo, it sounds so freakishly awesome that I have to see it to believe it !!!

[ink]

Ken,

Imagine a V-shaped wineglass

I'm thinking that would have to be a martini glass... and now I'm thirsty

PS. I second calls for a video, if there is one

[Levsha]

The 23mm gun on the new Hinds has less kick than the 30mm gun it replaces so its less of an issue and they can go with a turret. The Apache's gun has a much higher rate of fire and fires a much smaller 30mm round which also produces less kick. The high rate of fire makes up for the loss in accuracy by giving you more of a shot gun effect, but the shells are not effective against heavy armor. Its a question of compromise.

Not effective against "heavy" armour? That is something of a sweeping statement. I guess neither of these guns would be effective against the frontal armour of today's battle tank - side and rear armour would be more likely. As to how effective either the M230 or the 2A42 are against the "non-frontal" armour of any given tank is open to debate?

The recoil issue is very real, it's the main reason why Germany's Tiger variant does not have a gun turret. With the primary mission being anti-tank (questionable decision, but that's another issue entirely) it was found to be so inaccurate in that role, as opposed to making enemy infantry keep their heads down, as to be useless. And that was a gun (GIAT 30M 781) with *considerably* less punch than the 2A42!

Seriously? No gun on German Tigres? Crazy! what battlefield helicopter (even transport) doesn't have gun on board? Could they not have just fitted an "off-the-shelf" 20 mm gun with turret - surely there's a big choice available?

[Trident]

I can remember watching one of the many Ka-50 prototypes displaying at Zhukovsky during one of the MAKS airshows.

Imagine a V-shaped wineglass - with the Ka-50 pointing downwards along the V.

Then have the helicopter travelling around the rim of the glass (still pointing downwards) - and then the point of V travelling down the runway.

That's how the Ka-50 was demonstrating its ability to aim the 30mm cannon at a spot on the ground - whilst circling and travelling laterally.

A bit like the spout of a tornado, with the end of the spout being the target - the agility was very impressive.

Ken

Yes, the high yaw rates and fast sideways speeds afforded by the coaxial rotors give the Ka-50 an unparalleled ability to execute that manoeuvre, I guess it would look much like an orbiting fixed-wing Gunship in action:

http://www.goodday.co.nz/files/attac...art-193-10.jpg

http://www.atterburybakalarairmuseum.org/cone_2.jpg

I'm not sure whether it's a valid combat tactic for a helicopter though - at low altitude it exposes you to ground fire almost as much as a strafing attack, flown at higher altitude it would make you vulnerable to missiles. Which I guess is why Kamov did provide the ability to depress the gun (shoot and scoot, firing from a hover in relatively safe locations).

As to how effective either the M230 or the 2A42 are against the "non-frontal" armour of any given tank is open to debate?

Not really debatable - the 2A42 has both a higher muzzle velocity (100 to 200m/s more, which is quite a lot) and higher projectile weights (~50% heavier - GAU-8 territory!), also sub-calibre APDS rounds are available. It WILL hit significantly harder than the M230 - count on it!

Seriously? No gun on German Tigres? Crazy!

It is! Well, I think there are podded 20mm guns available for carriage on the stub wing pylons, but I think we can agree that's a poor substitute as it requires strafing attacks (no gun depression to fire from a hover).

what battlefield helicopter (even transport) doesn't have gun on board?

Yeah, but the German Tigers are NOT battlefield helicopters - their mission is quite narrowly defined as anti-tank (Panzerabwehr - hence the PAH2 designation). If you accept that logic it makes sense, trouble is that it's a fundamentally flawed and outdated concept.

Could they not have just fitted an "off-the-shelf" 20 mm gun with turret - surely there's a big choice available?

Since the decision-makers were apparently blinkered as to the requirements of tasks other than anti-tank, why would they? A 20mm gun might be more accurate but would not fare any better in the anti-armour role due to lack of sheer power - the people in charge were apparently quite oblivious to its value for infantry suppression. And if it came to that, the easiest option would still have been to adopt the French 30mm turret anyway, as it is purpose designed to match the airframe.

[Levsha]

Not really debatable - the 2A42 has both a higher muzzle velocity (100 to 200m/s more, which is quite a lot) and higher projectile weights (~50% heavier - GAU-8 territory!), also sub-calibre APDS rounds are available. It WILL hit significantly harder than the M230 - count on it!

I don't doubt that the 2A42 is the more powerful gun, what I am asking is, what sort of damage can the gun do to an M-1 Abrams or a Leopard 2? Just as critically, at what range? And why is the anti-tank capability of of these guns so important - what's wrong with the 16 or so Hellfire and Ataka missiles these helicopters carry?

[Trident]

Neither is going to do much to the frontal armour of a modern MBT, but the 2A42 will kill faster from a wider range of angles - and needless to say, MBTs are not the only type of AFV on the battlefield There's a reason why IFVs are typically armed with cannons in the class of the 2A42 rather than the M230 - the only question is whether it makes sense on a helo to install such a gun in a way that renders it too inaccurate for anti-armour use. As has been mentioned before, the Ka-52 (rigid, semi-trainable mount) or Mi-35 (lighter gun in a turret for soft targets) are probably more pragmatic than the Mi-28 in this regard.

[Austin]

Kamov vs. Mil: prospects for Russian chopper fleet

[mikoyan1991]

New Mi-24s.

nice .what is that black pod under the nose? and has been taken any step to reduce the heat of engines of the new mi-35 of RuAF ?

[TR1]

Radio guidance pod for ATGM.

[mikoyan1991]

Radio guidance pod for ATGM.

so it is something like radar ?

[TR1]

All it does is provide automatic radio guidance to the Shturm.

[Sens]

...
Yeah, but the German Tigers are NOT battlefield helicopters - their mission is quite narrowly defined as anti-tank (Panzerabwehr - hence the PAH2 designation). If you accept that logic it makes sense, trouble is that it's a fundamentally flawed and outdated concept.
..

Correct when limited to a kind of asymmetrical warfare and even than the opponent has not have some advanced manpads. Against a capable opponent the concept of stand-off capability is still valid.

[J-20 Hotdog]

New Mi-24s.

interesting.

note the passengers in the hind behind the hind

[Trident]

Correct when limited to a kind of asymmetrical warfare and even than the opponent has not have some advanced manpads. Against a capable opponent the concept of stand-off capability is still valid.

Agree, but since you can have both capabilities in the same helo (even the same Tiger airframe, as Spain and Australia demonstrate ) no problem at all, it's still a regrettable decision.

[mack8]

It's beautiful

[fulcrum-aholic]

I concur. This thing is similar to GAU-8/A Avenger with short bursts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1rGcn...eature=related

-And there's also a very good scene A-10 short bursts with its cannon from the movie IMAX, Fighter Pilot.

[Jō Asakura]

Phazatron-NIIR reveal X-band and Ka-band radar for medium to heavy UAVs (800kg) and various helicopters (including Ka-52, Mi-28N, Ka-60 and Ka-27/28) and civilian aircraft. Surprisingly, it's not an AESA



http://missiles2go.wordpress.com/201...2%d0%be%d0%b9/

[observe]

Agree, but since you can have both capabilities in the same helo (even the same Tiger airframe, as Spain and Australia demonstrate ) no problem at all, it's still a regrettable decision.

Only if you want to send it to a small war.
It's almost like the old Ka-50/52 fixed gun vs Mi-28 turret debates.

Tiger .de was sold as a Kiowa-on-steroids.
In a real war, why would you want to send your precious few recon/tank hunter helicopters (be it a Ka-50 or the Tiger.de or Kiowa or MD-500 Defender) on a gun CAS mission? You want them sniping tanks, not getting shot up by flak.

If your situation is so desperate you need your ~80 recon helis to run CAS for your 200'000 man army, I'm afraid 80x flying 23/30mm won't help you much.

Over Libya, French Gazelles with 4 HOT were still effective. H_K posted that over 600 HOT missiles had been fired, IIRC. Plenty hard targets even in that limited war.
Plenty targets for IDF Defenders and Syrian Gazelles in past wars too.