Moderadores: Lepanto, poliorcetes, Edu, Orel
Coño, orel, pero no lo respondas de un plumazo. Matiza en lo necesario.
Pero lo que comentas tiene una trampa:
Y si te implicas de verdad en un conflicto, eso acaba pasando. Los rusos lo han aprendido a las malas
marauderxs escribió:Denel = Sudáfrica, aunque no sea una gran potencia, hace armas buenas y efectivas (ved sus fusiles, carros blindados,e tc) dudo que la haya cagado en esta y creo que estará muy enfocada a la realiad, aunque puede que mas a la suya que a la del resto.
En segundo lugar, recuerdo el papel del apache en Kosovo, por poner un solo ejemplo. Sólo el blindaje da oportunidades reales cuando el otro fulano te sorprende, saca de su escondite un AA o un MANPADs y te envía un recado sin tiempo para que puedas usar tu agilidad.
Creo que un helo de apoyo deberia poder aguantar algo de esa lluvia de balas ligeras ya que de lo contrario resultara inutil en ese entorno. Se que un solo entorno no puede condenar todo un diseño, pero no es un entorno tan dificil de encontrar.
En cuanto a los uavs, no creo que nadie hoy en dia dude de que son el futuro del apoyo cercano.
Los Apache no pudieron hacer nada en ese entorno de alta intensidad (AAA, MANPADS, SAM corto alcance móviles), con geografía europea (montañosa y boscosa) y con meteorología variable y mala. ¿Alguno de esos helos rusos tan bien diseñados y blindados ha demostrado poder participar en un entorno tal? No. Es todo "en teoría". Habría que ver si también se quedarían en retaguardia. Ahí sólo podemos hablar de opiniones e hipótesis personales.
shuravi :
Gentlemen, we are talking about mass-produced helicopter gunships. I mentioned glider is not in vain, to date, the Mi-24 as a whole does not meet the requirements for combat helicopters. But is he seriously out of date? And as far as match customer requirements and the realities of today.
Let's compare the Mi-24 (the most common variants B and D) with the American AH-64D 'Apache Longbow'
Let's start with a comparison of flight and tactical characteristics, namely the maximum and cruising speeds, static and dynamic ceiling, range and ferry range.
Thus:
Mi-24 (B, L)
is the velocity 335/270km/ch
-static ceiling 1500m
-4500m service ceiling
-range combat 500km
-range ferry at least 1200 km.
AH-64D
309/260km/ch-speed
static-ceiling 4570m
-potolok6250m dynamic
-range combat 611km
-1900km range ferry
At first glance, all the figures, except for top speed in favor of American. But let us look closely, nothing strange not noticed?
tactical flight characteristics (hereafter LTH) Mi-24 expressed in round numbers, while Apache does not.
Why?
explain: Gentlemen Americans unsurpassed master of expulsion of drinking in the eye and not to be unfounded let's first solve two smaller problems.
1) Given: 1157l fuel in main tanks and four tank suspended in 871l, the range of 1900km. The question is, what kilometer fuel consumption?
2) Given: 1157l fuel, combat range of 611km. The question is the same.
Answer: In the first case, 2.44 l / km, the second 1.89 l / km.
Do not go? It all fits, the fact that fuel consumption depends on load and drag. A load in the case of distillation was initially increased to 2787kg weight of additional fuel plus external fuel tanks. Also increased the overhead bins drag.
Stop, and perhaps to combat the use of flight is performed without a load?
Yes ladies and gentlemen, the range of 611km is obtained on the lightly (without weapons and armor) helicopter!
As for the static and dynamic ceilings, in these cases, even basic tanks are not fully refueled.
All claimed LTH Apache (as well as any other American technology), it figures obtained in test flights in lighter specimens!
We have a completely different principle, all the basic flight characteristics (except distillation) are satisfied by any combatant aircraft with the standard combat load, regardless of the timing of its operation. More is possible but not less.
For example, service ceiling of the Mi-24P (1986 release) is 4500. So, your humble servant in this type of helicopter (being 'beyond the river') with the following load: two sets of B-20, two anti-tank 'assault', two hundred fifty shells NH2-30, reached by tactical necessity 5200m.
What does it mean maximum speed of 335km / h? Obtained it follows from the maximum speed achieved in testing the standard production model in combat configuration, subtract 50 km / h, and then held rounded down.
Similarly, the received and other flight characteristics of the Mi-24.
I think that means the maximum speed at 309km / h, achieved by Apache no longer needs to explain. You can only take my hat off to test the skill, managed to disperse the 'Brick' to that speed.
Now such an important parameter as damage control.
Combat survivability is the ability to continue to fly a helicopter (do a combat mission) when exposed to weapons.
is achieved, this redundancy is vital important components and systems, as well as booking the above.
If duplicate units Americans have learned (although still use single-engine helicopters in the Army), then to book things are very bad.
The fact is that booking a helicopter entails some serious problems, increases structural weight, reduced recoil mass (that is, reduced payload), reduced flight performance. On the 'Mi-24' to solve the above-mentioned problems of applied ingenious invention Ilyushinskoe: not ready to burden the fuselage on armor (as was done in 'Apache'), and armor to make the fuselage. On the 'Mi-24' is placed in the crew bronekorpuse as the famous' IL-2. In the performance of armor 'Mi-24' yours truly had the opportunity to see in person. Otherwise I would not write these lines:
'Apache' is, for some reason, probably commercial, very poorly armored (well, why because of what that armor spoil price - sheet lower flight characteristics, it is easier to say about the possibility of damage to the enemy without entering the zone of possible attack). A member of this zone have combat helicopters, but more on this later.
Vitality armored helicopters is many times higher. Estimated persistence is not on the total number of battle deaths, and the number of hits from a particular type of weapon directly at the helicopter needed to make it in the number of those losses was. For example, there have been cases return to base 'Mi-24' after the defeat of the rocket 'Stinger', for 'Apache' was enough for a rifle bullet. But in Iraq, 'Apache' very likely was hit by a rifle bullet, because it had (according to the TV report) visible damage from heavier weapons. Statement of the American side that sat on the helicopter emergency landing due to engine failure in a dust storm, a propaganda move, and not very smart. In the dust storm even 'Apache' do not fly (as well as all existing helicopters), in addition, there are not one but two engines (and equipped with the so-called 'ROM' that is, dust protection devices) and in case one of them provides the possibility to fly even with a set height. What do we, or the engines on the 'Apache' useless, or "ROM"? Here is the persistence of 'Apache'. I wonder what would be the persistence of 'Apache' in the combat, of which, in spite of the damage 'Mi-24' still come back.
But not only survive on the battlefield, you must also destroy the enemy. But first it is necessary to detect it. Americans say that have solved these problems by installing a millimeter-wave radar, as well as developing a new rocket Hellfaer-B.
Let's face it.
What is the purpose of military helicopters? In direct support of ground troops on the battlefield in terms of visual contact with their units as well as with the enemy (for other conditions exist gunships, fighter bombers, frontline bombers). To reduce the likelihood of damage from enemy air defense crews of helicopters to perform combat missions at extremely low altitudes. Based on this, the helicopters set the appropriate weapons and equipment. Do each combat helicopter radar? The question is not simple. Of course, millimeter-wave radar has several advantages, principal among which is the ability to discern the shape of the object, for example, under ideal conditions, it can distinguish between a tractor from the tank. Why does the ideal? Here it is necessary to dwell on some features of the radar. Since the invention of the above and in the process of using it, it was found that the higher the operating frequency of the radar, the higher the resolution, ie the ability to detect smaller objects. But at the same time, the shorter wavelength (higher frequency), the lower the penetration ability. If the VHF radar can detect aircraft in the clouds, the radar Millimeter perfectly distinguish only the shape of the clouds. Millimeter-wave reflected from the surface just a cloud. For efficient operation of millimeter-wave radar requires a perfect state of the atmosphere. Millimeter-wave radar is unable to distinguish the real from the tank layout, and most importantly it is completely useless in terms of heavy snow, sand storms, dense fog, dust. Also inefficient in its use of the mountain, wooded areas, as well as in urban environments. Also note that in actual combat, the effectiveness of the radar can be significantly reduced by means of electronic warfare. I'm not the enemy radar as a means of detecting the enemy, just do not need to be considered a panacea for radar. Millimeter radar is quite appropriate and necessary to the reconnaissance helicopter, because even with the above mentioned drawbacks, still increases the efficiency of the latter. But the combat helicopter radar is contraindicated. Equipped with radar helicopter easy target for enemy air defenses. Why? Because the radar, among other things, a powerful source of electromagnetic radiation and for the effective operation of radar must have a minimum height of 50 meters. Better gift for today's air defenses and can not imagine. Against this background, the optical detection systems have a distinct advantage. They did not unmask the media, in addition, to allow more accurate selection of targets. Equipping 'Apache' above mentioned radar Americans contradict their own helicopter tactics, based on implicit approximation, and the use of ambushes. That is, hitting the opponent and do not find yourself ahead of time. And what kind of secrecy can be discussed if the radar is a powerful tool for give-away! Yes, of course, at the site, in perfect weather, crews 'Apache', quite successfully struck layouts and decommissioned military equipment. And that showed the actual fighting? All the same models the successful defeat and decommissioned military equipment, plus civilian targets and civilians. What was proved in Yugoslavia and then in Iraq. So it's too early to write off another optical system, they still serve. But the goal is not enough to detect, combat helicopter must destroy it. To do this in a helicopter mounted weapon systems, the main one of which is controlled by Missiles. Discuss it in detail. Guided missiles, regardless of their combat supplies are divided into three groups:
passive targeting _
_ semi-active guidance
_ active guidance.
The principle of passive targeting based on their own emission targets (or thermal radio emission), in this case the rocket is equipped with a so-called 'homing', which and displays a missile at a target. The advantage of this principle is that the operator works on the principle of 'fire-and-forget', and hence a major disadvantage if necessary can not intervene in the process guidance. Hit probability of such a missile is quite low, about 0.3-0.4. This principle of targeting is widespread in man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS).
The principle of semi-active guidance is based on the external illumination of targets from an external source (a laser radar), the missile in this case is also equipped homing, but strictly tuned to the code of the emitter. With this method of guidance, the operator must carry out lighting purposes until its defeat missile. The advantage of this guidance is the ability to 'highlight' of a target (not installed on the media) source, in this case, the carrier is able to operate on the principle of 'fire-and-forget'. The possibility of retargeting missiles operator is virtually eliminated. The disadvantage of this method of guidance is that the missile is able to produce independent refocus on more 'bright' goal (in the case defeat Ukrainian anti-aircraft missile of Russian aircraft). Probability of hitting the target of such missile approximately 0.6-0.7 (for laser illumination of more than 0.. This principle is used in the guidance of obsolete anti-aircraft missile systems, as well as in both cases (for AGM-114A laser, for the AGM-114 radar B) ATGMs 'Hellfaer'. The principle of active guidance is based on the direct control of the missile flight (on the radio or wire) operator (machine) located on the media. Advantages of this method is that the operator has full control of missile guidance, is practically impossible for the defeat of 'false' goals, it is possible to re-targeting. The disadvantage is that the operator must carry out missile guidance until its meeting with a purpose. Probability of hitting more than 0.8. On this principle works most modern air defense systems, antitank guided missile 'Storm' and 'Attack', and outdated (controlled by-wire), but still standing in the U.S. Army anti-tank 'Tou'. What about rockets 'Hellfire', it is not induced by radar, it's 'semi-active' rocket, which requires target illumination coded laser beam, or a radar radiation from an external source. Sounds nice, but no special advantages over the missiles 'Storm' and 'Attack' does not possess, at the same time 'Hellfire-A' has very serious flaws, the failure of guidance in terms of smoke and dust (which is almost always present in the area of operation) , pointing to the impossibility of objective, non-reflective surface (embrasure pillbox), the inability of the night. It is possible to use the night has been developed 'Hellfaer-B. But along with the aforementioned advantage of this missile has weaknesses such as high likelihood of spontaneous re-targeting, guidance, and the process of unmasking that too actually more expensive. Amazingly, the rocket 'Hellfaer', both modifications have subsonic speed, distance 4km. it arrives in 15 seconds (compared to the 'old' missile 'Storm' the same distance overcomes 9 seconds). In order to overcome the stated maximum range of 7 km. Rocket 'Hellfaer' need 22 seconds, perhaps, the tank crew will have time to drink coffee before proceeding to the formulation of a smokescreen, or clutter. Staging a smoke screen (the most common way to camouflage armored vehicles) are not always effective against missiles 'assault'. Operator is sufficient to see a fragment of the target (or outlines goals) through a smoke screen to hit the target. Also affected are likely to completely invisible target, if its position is known (able to detect smoke screen laying) with respect to visible landmarks. Rocket 'Hellfire-A' in these cases is completely useless.
Now about the everyday concerns, about the avionics.
To say that the Mi-24 is not just outdated avionics, to say nothing.
That there is only one ballistic computer, weighing 300kg!
Thus it because of its' high-accuracy 'is never used, I personally do over 12 years of flights to the Mi-24 they never used it.
avionics upgrade alone will allow Mi-24 'lose weight' nearly a ton!
Well, how are you competitors?
There is another extreme, there is shoved computers, displays, where possible and where not.
And that, electronic warfare (EW in the future) has been abolished?
And how do you intend to operate in isolation from the Apache bases?
Now on customer requirements and the realities of the day.
I do not know you, but I have long had the feeling that at this point in the west everything is upside down. That is not the customer specifies the required characteristics of weapons for tactical requirements, and producer based out of business.
Before the claim, what we need helicopters, let's see how they perform combat missions. According to the tactics of Army aviation, combat helicopters are designed for direct fire support to ground troops on the battlefield, but also for the destruction of small, armored targets that are inaccessible to destroy other aircraft. The specifics of combat employment of helicopters in the visual detection and recognition purposes. In recent years, added another combat mission, the fight against terror. As the experience of local conflicts, combat helicopters are better than other aircraft adapted to the partisan (anti-terrorist) war. And as you know, guerrilla warfare is characterized by a small number of militant groups, primarily the conduct of hostilities during the night, the lack of a solid front line. Under these conditions, combat helicopters are constantly at risk of being fired from small arms. Besides the massive armored attack is not expected.
Therefore, to meet the requirements as a full-scale and anti-terrorist war, helicopter must have the following equipment, armament and flying characteristics: flight control and navigation equipment enables the helicopter pilot and output on the target day and night in any weather conditions, search and sighting equipment allowing for the search of the enemy, as well as aiming to day and night in all weather conditions, allowing weapons complex affects both manpower and armored vehicles, tactical flight characteristics allow for the piloting and combat use in a wide speed range and altitude, and high mobility.
Mi duda es, si el artillero se ocupa de todas las armas ¿Como hace para disparar los cohetes? me explico.
La ametralladora la maneja con mando o con casco y no tiene problema dado que está en torreta (o suele estarlo).
Los misiles los dispara y los guía. No problem,
Mi duda es, los cohetes no tienen guía, osea que tienen que ser apuntados con el helo, lo cual controla el piloto entonces ¿Es el piloto el que dispara los cohetes? o ¿Cómo se ponen deacuerdo para que uno apunte el helo y el otro dispare?.
Perdonad la duda tonta, pero era algo que me rondaba y no aguanto mas.
Usuarios navegando por este Foro: No hay usuarios registrados visitando el Foro y 0 invitados