HELP: Can Mil 24 Hinds hover ??
Daniel Ebneter
Kevin Skelly wrote:
>
> Can Mil 24 Hinds hover?
Sure they can. I saw two of them at an airshow in Switzerland once.
They performed something like a ballet, facing each other in a hover,
then slowly turning around each other in circles.
Hope this helps,
Daniel
Petr Zaoral
Kevin Skelly wrote:
>
> Can Mil 24 Hinds hover? I was talking to a friend of mine who ios a pilot in
> Nelson (New Zealand) and he recalls reading that Hinds cant land or takeoff
> vertically. He doesn't remember where he read it though... Can anybody out
> there confirm this?
> Any help would be greatly appreciated as I have searched all of my literature
> and cant find out.
> --
> "You said you wanted to be around when I made a mistake;
> Well this could be it, sweetheart..." - Han Solo, ESB
> Kevin Skelly <ske...@schools.minedu.govt.nz>
> or <kevin....@library.otago.ac.nz>
Probably you don't know czech Hind Display Team (it won prestige championship in GB of
acrobatics). Hind really can hover and can "little" more.
Sorry but if you or some your friend read something like this - it is only propaganda
from cold war, it can't be meaned seriously in present time.
By Petr
Kevin Skelly
Brian Elliott
ske...@schools.minedu.govt.nz (Kevin Skelly) wrote:
>Can Mil 24 Hinds hover?
>snip>>
Do dolphins swim?
What a question. Yes, and more and you better believe it because when
they come hunting then it's time to head for the tunnels....
brian
Max Hacker
MI 24 Hinds can come hunting all they want. All U.S. Army helicopters have
better performance than the Hind. The only helicopter that I or any other
pilot would hate to go up against is the KA-50 Werewolf.
Paul J. Adam
In article <01bb74c3$029fea60$5f3bd8ce@NETCOM>, Max Hacker
<maxh...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>MI 24 Hinds can come hunting all they want. All U.S. Army helicopters have
>better performance than the Hind.
UH-1, OH-6, OH-58, CH-47, CH-53, UH-60?
Wouldn't like to try to play games with a Hind in any of those.
--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Brian Elliott
"Max Hacker" <maxh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>MI 24 Hinds can come hunting all they want. All U.S. Army helicopters have
>better performance than the Hind. The only helicopter that I or any other
>pilot would hate to go up against is the KA-50 Werewolf.
Does that include the UH-1 & the OH-58?
Max Hacker
MI 24 Hinds can hover. I have seen one personally hover across from me
when I was flying the border trace in Germany. The newer mods also have a
hover auto-hold mode.
The reason you don't see too many do hovering attacks is that soviet
helicopter attack methods preach movement is better than standing still.
They operate in 2 to 3 ship formations like fighter planes.
> ske...@schools.minedu.govt.nz (Kevin Skelly) wrote in article
<4sl3vs$q...@st-james.comp.vuw.ac.nz>...
Don Lindsay
Paul J. Adam wrote:
>
> In article <01bb74c3$029fea60$5f3bd8ce@NETCOM>, Max Hacker
> <maxh...@ix.netcom.com> writes
> >better performance than the Hind.
>
>
> Wouldn't like to try to play games with a Hind in any of those.
>
only if it was Hide and Seek :)
Don
Max Hacker
I will take all U.S. Army helicopters to outmaneuver a Hind. I am qual'ed
on UH-1, OH-58 A,C,D's ( I am a scout pilot ), and UH-60's.
The Hind was built with certain specifications. It was not designed as a
gunship. It was designed as a armed troop transport. It can fight its way
to the drop zone, support the troops after, then extract them at the pick
up zone.
It was not until the Havoc that the Soviets had a true gunship. By the way
the Havoc is a Apache knock-off. This is because a stinking E-5 committed
treason by selling them the plans when it was initially being phased in.
Joe Claffey Jr.
In article <7+iPz6A6...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam"
<pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <01bb74c3$029fea60$5f3bd8ce@NETCOM>, Max Hacker
><maxh...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>>MI 24 Hinds can come hunting all they want. All U.S. Army helicopters have
>>better performance than the Hind.
>
>UH-1, OH-6, OH-58, CH-47, CH-53, UH-60?
>
>Wouldn't like to try to play games with a Hind in any of those.
IIRC, many US "transport" helicopters can carry weapons. I admit that
they wouldn't be my first choice, but the very least you'd have is a guy
hanging out the door with a Stinger. :-)
--
Joe Claffey | "In the end, everything is a gag."
j...@nai.net | - Charlie Chaplin
Sean Shenold
As a former M1/M1A1 Abrams gunner, we were told that a fully loaded
Mi-24 'Hind' could NOT hover; it had to maintain some translational
lift by moving forward at something like 15-20 kts. (Don't know if
this applied to one specific model or the whole Mi-24 series.) Of
course, as fuel burn and/or ordinance expenditure lightened the load,
I'm sure it could then hover. Doesn't sound like a fun aircraft to
fly, though; nibbling at a rotor stall while in a hover?
Of course, any competent M1 or M1A1 gunner could put a 105mm/120mm
(respectively) sabot round through either of a Hind's windshields out
to about 3000 meters.
(heh heh heh!)
John Goscinski
In article <SHAFER.96J...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>, sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov (Mary Shafer) writes:
>
> Re-read the beginning of "The Cardinal Of The Kremlin" for a fictional
> discussion of the Hind's capabilities.
>
I'm sure there will be plenty of fictional discussion of the Hind's capabilities
right here! HehEEEEEEE.
John
Mary Shafer
On Fri, 19 Jul 1996 08:32:48 GMT, Don Lindsay <dlin...@gil.com.au> said:
D> Paul J. Adam wrote:
>
> In article <01bb74c3$029fea60$5f3bd8ce@NETCOM>, Max Hacker
> <maxh...@ix.netcom.com> writes >MI 24 Hinds can come hunting all
> they want. All U.S. Army helicopters have >better performance than
> the Hind.
>
> UH-1, OH-6, OH-58, CH-47, CH-53, UH-60?
>
> Wouldn't like to try to play games with a Hind in any of those.
D> only if it was Hide and Seek :)
And my partner was in a fighter with air-to-air missiles. Even then,
being a decoy isn't fun.
Re-read the beginning of "The Cardinal Of The Kremlin" for a fictional
discussion of the Hind's capabilities.
--
Mary Shafer NASA Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards, CA
SR-71 Flying Qualities Lead Engineer Of course I don't speak for NASA
sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov DoD #362 KotFR
URL http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/People/Shafer/mary.html
For personal messages, please use sha...@ursa-major.spdcc.com
Paul J. Adam
In article <01bb7561$b609e580$4550bacd@NETCOM>, Max Hacker
<maxh...@ix.netcom.com> writes
>I will take all U.S. Army helicopters to outmaneuver a Hind. I am qual'ed
>on UH-1, OH-58 A,C,D's ( I am a scout pilot ), and UH-60's.
I'm reminded of a former colleague who was part-owner of an Auster AOP
aircraft. Apparently SOP in Korea was for the Austers, if attacked by
enemy jets, "to descend, and orbit around a tree while calling for
assistance by radio". If you can outmanoevre him, he won't fight a
manoevre battle.
Todd Bergland
>Of course, any competent M1 or M1A1 gunner could put a 105mm/120mm
>(respectively) sabot round through either of a Hind's windshields out
>to about 3000 meters.
>(heh heh heh!)
I remember one of our training cadre telling us (US Army Military
Police) that if we saw a HIND not to shoot at it. We wouldn't want to
make it angry. (The heaviest thing we carried was the MK-19, which I'm
sure would down a HIND... if we could hit it)
I've also read the same thing about hovering... Not with a full load
of men,fuel, and ammo.
HARI
p.s. Did the US ARMY ever adaopt the anti-air equipment on the Abrams
for anti-helicopter work?
Paul J. Adam
In article <jrc-190796...@news.nai.net>, "Joe Claffey Jr."
<j...@nai.net> writes
>>
>>Wouldn't like to try to play games with a Hind in any of those.
>
>they wouldn't be my first choice, but the very least you'd have is a guy
>hanging out the door with a Stinger. :-)
There might be a slight problem of backblast from firing the missile :(
Also, Hinds are armoured to withstand small-arms fire: you need a 12.7mm
or 14.5mm gun to do any real harm to them.
Mary Shafer
On Sat, 20 Jul 1996 04:51:07 GMT, ha...@usinternet.com (Todd Bergland) said:
>Of course, any competent M1 or M1A1 gunner could put a 105mm/120mm
>(respectively) sabot round through either of a Hind's windshields out
>to about 3000 meters.
>(heh heh heh!)
T> I remember one of our training cadre telling us (US Army Military
T> Police) that if we saw a HIND not to shoot at it. We wouldn't want
T> to make it angry. (The heaviest thing we carried was the MK-19,
T> which I'm
T> sure would down a HIND... if we could hit it)
There's a quote from an Afghanistani mujahadeen (sp?) floating around
to the effect of "We do not fear the Russians, but we do fear their
helicopters".
However, the mujahadeen (I have no idea whether this is the plural or
singular form, sorry) ran the Russians out of Afghanistan, so it's
obvious the Russian helicopters were not invincible.
If any of you here read Rudyard Kipling or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,
you'll have read of the British attempts to control what's now
Afghanistan. Watson's wound from a jazael (sp) was inflicted by a
mujahadeen. I believe Kipling and Doyle refer to these campaigns as
the various wars in the North-West Territories (relative to British
India, of course). The British weren't the first, either.
Glenn Dowdy
bar...@licancabur.Corp.Sun.COM (Juan Carlos Barroux R. - SunService)
wrote:
>In article 0...@news.usinternet.com, ha...@usinternet.com (Todd Bergland) writes:
>>
>> I've also read the same thing about hovering... Not with a full load
>> of men,fuel, and ammo.
>
>
> I mean, the things has to take off vertically with all of its load.
> Or am I sadly mistaken?
>
> j.c.
>
The A/C would take off from a really high cliff. Actually, it would taxi
and take off like a fixed wing aircraft.
Glenn
Juan Carlos Barroux R. - SunService
In article 0...@news.usinternet.com, ha...@usinternet.com (Todd Bergland) writes:
>
> I've also read the same thing about hovering... Not with a full load
> of men,fuel, and ammo.
If it could not hover with that load, then how could it take off?
I mean, the things has to take off vertically with all of its load.
Or am I sadly mistaken?
Speaking for himself,
j.c.
Max Hacker
Like I said I am a Scout pilot (CW2). The Hind can hover. If you don't
think so go to the Czech border.
And your damn right. One of the biggest fears of a scout is to be hit by a
main gun round. That is why the Army has now begun to install laser
detectors on many of its helicopters.
Max Hacker
The correct method to outmaneuver a fighter is this:
First Hopefully your RWR detects him.
Second Turn and head straight for him. This closes the distance and reduces
the range of his missiles.
Third. At the last possible moment turn 90 degrees from him and hide or
launch a air to air missile if so equipped.
Steve Hix
In article 9...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM, (Juan Carlos Barroux R. - SunService) writes:
:In article 0...@news.usinternet.com, ha...@usinternet.com (Todd Bergland) writes:
:>
:> I've also read the same thing about hovering... Not with a full load
:> of men,fuel, and ammo.
:
: If it could not hover with that load, then how could it take off?
Taxi forward into the wind? Hard to do with skids, maybe.
: I mean, the things has to take off vertically with all of its load.
: Or am I sadly mistaken?
A helicopter can get off the ground...a bit...and still may not be able
to fly at a given altitude or payload.
Some rescues at high levels in the Alps or Andes have been made at
above the effective ceilings of the helicopters doing the work.
They could get home by staying within ground effect until they ran
off the edge of a local cliff (whose base, hopefully, was below the
effective operating ceiling).
Jesse Nadel
Juan Carlos Barroux R. - SunService wrote:
>
> In article 0...@news.usinternet.com, ha...@usinternet.com (Todd Bergland) writes:
> >
> > I've also read the same thing about hovering... Not with a full load
> > of men,fuel, and ammo.
>
> If it could not hover with that load, then how could it take off?
>
> Or am I sadly mistaken?
>
>
> j.c.
I suspect that the difference is ground effect. When a helicopter is
close to the ground, the maximum available lift of the rotor is
increased. It's possible, then, for a helicopter to take off at gross
weight from a hilltop, then move laterally off the hill and be unable to
hover; it can only descend or start moving forward. Once going forward
airflow over the fueslage produces lift and the chopper can fly (forward)
at an altitude and weight which prohibit hovering.
Jesse
Geoff Miller
Jesse Nadel <nad...@cliffy.lfwc.lockheed.com>:
> Once going forward airflow over the fueslage produces lift
> and the chopper can fly (forward) at an altitude and weight
> which prohibit hovering.
"Airflow over the fueslage produces lift?" How do you figure?
Aircraft fueslages generally don't produce significant lift
except at positive angles of attack -- and even then, it's
_because_ of the angle of attack and not the fuselage's shape.
In the case of a helicopter, when it begins moving forward the
fuselage is actually at a _negative_ angle of attack because of
the forward angle of the rotor disk.
Or perhaps you were thinking of the Mi-24's stub wings?
Geoff
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Geoff Miller + + + + + + + + Sun Microsystems
geo...@purplehaze.Eng.Sun.COM + + + + + + + + Mountain View, California
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
Paul J. Adam
In article <SHAFER.96J...@ferhino.dfrf.nasa.gov>, Mary Shafer
<sha...@ferhino.dfrc.nasa.gov> writes
>here's a quote from an Afghanistani mujahadeen (sp?) floating around
>to the effect of "We do not fear the Russians, but we do fear their
>helicopters".
>
>However, the mujahadeen (I have no idea whether this is the plural or
>singular form, sorry) ran the Russians out of Afghanistan, so it's
>obvious the Russian helicopters were not invincible.
Stingers worked. The other measures were mostly heavy machine guns or
23mm cannon, which were bulky, few in number and immobile: they tended
to lose shooting matches with the Hinds.
>If any of you here read Rudyard Kipling or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle,
>you'll have read of the British attempts to control what's now
>Afghanistan. Watson's wound from a jazael (sp) was inflicted by a
>mujahadeen. I believe Kipling and Doyle refer to these campaigns as
>the various wars in the North-West Territories (relative to British
>India, of course). The British weren't the first, either.
AFAIK nobody in a few hundred years has successfully conquered
Afghanistan: Britain and Russia both made major efforts last centuries
and lost large amounts of manpower in the attempt. The Soviet Union this
century... the parallels with Vietnam are, with 20/20 hindsight,
obvious. (I remember hearing a news report in 1984 that the Afghans were
recieving Stingers from the US, and telling my father that the Russians
had lost. Not bad for fourteen, huh? :) )
Kristan Roberge
fx...@cityscape.co.uk (Brian Elliott) wrote:
>
> "Max Hacker" <maxh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> >MI 24 Hinds can come hunting all they want. All U.S. Army helicopters have
> >pilot would hate to go up against is the KA-50 Werewolf.
>
> Does that include the UH-1 & the OH-58?
>
uh no... and until the Comanche's enter service... the only possible threat
to a hind would be an AH-64 or possibly AH-1W... though the Hind is
faster than either of them...
But since he mentioned performance... the world helicopter top-speed
record was set on (as I recall) a 621km closed-circuit course by
an unmodified Mi-24C of the Mil Design Bureau at 224.8mph (that's an
average speed btw...). The TOP speed of an Apache is about 195mph and
of an AH-1W is about 175mph... The ONLY helicopter ever to be developed
for the army that was faster was the AH-56 Cheyenne...
Kristan Roberge
"Paul J. Adam" <pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <jrc-190796...@news.nai.net>, "Joe Claffey Jr."
> <j...@nai.net> writes
> >In article <7+iPz6A6...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk>, "Paul J. Adam"
> ><pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>UH-1, OH-6, OH-58, CH-47, CH-53, UH-60?
> >>
> >>Wouldn't like to try to play games with a Hind in any of those.
> >
> > IIRC, many US "transport" helicopters can carry weapons. I admit that
> >they wouldn't be my first choice, but the very least you'd have is a guy
> >hanging out the door with a Stinger. :-)
>
> There might be a slight problem of backblast from firing the missile :(
ARGH! forgot to point that out in my previous message... Yes... hot
rocket exhaust INSIDE the cabin... just what the crew needs...
> Also, Hinds are armoured to withstand small-arms fire: you need a 12.7mm
> or 14.5mm gun to do any real harm to them.
They're armored like the apache's... in other words the 7.62mm miniguns
and M60 machine-guns, common on US transport helicopters would be
annoying at best... The only threats would be a lucky-rocket hit,
the 20mm and 30mm cannons on the AH-1s and AH-64s, and stinger missiles...
though the Hinds do carry flare-dispensers and IRCM pods...
Kristan Roberge
SShe...@msn.com (Sean Shenold) wrote:
>
> As a former M1/M1A1 Abrams gunner, we were told that a fully loaded
> Mi-24 'Hind' could NOT hover; it had to maintain some translational
> lift by moving forward at something like 15-20 kts.
You weren't told this by army intelligence by any chance?!?
> Of course, any competent M1 or M1A1 gunner could put a 105mm/120mm
> (respectively) sabot round through either of a Hind's windshields out
> to about 3000 meters.
Assuming of course the Hind didn't sideslip about 10 feet the moment
they saw the muzzle flash from the M1's gun...
You watched Rambo III much too often btw...
Kristan Roberge
ha...@usinternet.com (Todd Bergland) wrote:
>
>
>
> >Of course, any competent M1 or M1A1 gunner could put a 105mm/120mm
> >(respectively) sabot round through either of a Hind's windshields out
> >to about 3000 meters.
>
> I remember one of our training cadre telling us (US Army Military
> make it angry. (The heaviest thing we carried was the MK-19, which I'm
> sure would down a HIND... if we could hit it)
hmmm, a 40mm grenade probably would have made it through the armor...
but hitting it is the problem... and pissing off a helicopter carrying
128 57mm rockets would not be on my list of "things to do today"...
> p.s. Did the US ARMY ever adaopt the anti-air equipment on the Abrams
> for anti-helicopter work?
Only the roof-mounted 12.7mm as far as I know... Who wants to volunteer
to open a hatch, and stand-up to fire off a stinger with an anti-tank
helicopter prowling around...
Kristan Roberge
ske...@schools.minedu.govt.nz (Kevin Skelly) wrote:
>
> Can Mil 24 Hinds hover? I was talking to a friend of mine who ios a pilot in
> Nelson (New Zealand) and he recalls reading that Hinds cant land or takeoff
> vertically. He doesn't remember where he read it though... Can anybody out
> there confirm this?
>
Your friend is an idiot... its a helicopter. It kinda has to land and
takeoff vertically... doing a rolling takeoff with a tail-rotor is not
a good idea...
Max Hacker
It is not air over the fuselage. At about 30 knots the rotor starts to act
as a wing. This is called transitional lift.
Chad Miller
In article <01bb7958$29b48540$433bd8ce@NETCOM>, "Max Hacker"
<maxh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> It is not air over the fuselage. At about 30 knots the rotor starts to act
> as a wing. This is called transitional lift.
Err...well, let's see if I can explain this in a comprehensible fashion,
(I'm doubting my communciation skills here, NOT the intelligence of the
audience, ok? )
If you think of the rotor system as being in a streamtube, the job of the
rotor system is to take input torque and turn that into downward force by
the acceleration of a given mass of air (the velocity gain across the
rotor in the notional streamtube is called the 'induced velocity') + lift
to allow the craft to hang below it. Mass flow of air shoved down by rotor
system + lift from blades = weight, to hover. (deep breath).
In a hover, the rotor system has the job to take _static_ air and speed it
up enough to, with the help of lift from the blades, to hover the
aircraft. The air, being static, takes the most accleration to get up to
the proper induced velocity to be able to hover. IE, the air is going from
a standing start to velocity x. Induced required to fly = 0 + x
Interpid pilot of the above craft tilts the rotor disk forward (adding
more power to compensate for the loss of lift caused by the tilting of the
vector) and begins to gain speed. As the speed increases, the rotor system
sees an INCREASE in the velocity of the air coming in (up from static
zero), and therefore it has to accelerate the air LESS. This requires less
torque, and the pilot is able to reduce power. IE, the rotor sees Induced
to fly = y + x, x is smaller than before.
There are other effects, pitch moment, rotor entering clean air, etc etc.
Also, lift effects from stub wings.
The rotor acts as a wing at all times, it just has less acting to do with
some forward velocity.
Therefore, you can load up a rotorywing craft so that it can FLY but not
HOVER. The interesting question then comes up, how do you get started on
the ground? If you're abroad ship, steaming smartly, you get a few free
nots. I cannot belive that the US Military would ever try this peacetime,
but I'll check.
Again, it goes without saying that you really don't wanna operate like
this, esp. if you can't dump weight real fast. If you are at the hairy
edge of being able to fly, much less hover, and you lose 5% engine power,
well, RW craft don't usually have ejection seats. (Yes, I can name at
least one that does).
One of the best discussions of tranitional lift is in the Army Flight
Manual, FM-102? darn, can't find copy and number is suspect. sorry.
I hope a) that some of this made sense b) I remembered it correctly
All of this, BTW, is really fun to model.
Chad Miller
Team Leader
Manned Flight Simulator Facility
Atlantic Ranges and Facilties
NAWC-AD, Patuxent River, Maryland
---------------------------------------------------------------------
'The skipper's say I'm Crazy, but I can prove them wrong
For I am in charge of the lower deck, with all that doth belong
Which they would not give to a Lunatic, and the competition so
strong!'
_Muholland's Contract_ Kipling
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Kristan Roberge
"Max Hacker" <maxh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> MI 24 Hinds can come hunting all they want. All U.S. Army helicopters have
> better performance than the Hind. The only helicopter that I or any other
> pilot would hate to go up against is the KA-50 Werewolf.
>
Werewolf?!? Oh... that silly name for the Hokum... gee... a purpose-built
anti-helicopter gunship... why would you hate that?!?
Actually EVERY US Army helicopter with the exception of the stillborn
AH-56 Cheyenne would get its butt-kicked by various members of the
Hind family... The Mi-24Cs hold multiple world speed & altitude
records as well as a couple endurance records..., they all make use
of extensive armor... the -Es carry a 23mm cannon are are optimized
for anti-helicopter attack... NO US helicopter can carry as heavy
a weapons payload as a Hind as well a squad of troops... and while big,
they are no slouch in the agility department...
Steve Hix
In article 433bd8ce@NETCOM, "Max Hacker" <maxh...@ix.netcom.com> writes:
:It is not air over the fuselage. At about 30 knots the rotor starts to act
:as a wing. This is called transitional lift.
Actually, the rotor *always* acts like a wing while turning.
They put the wings on top and threw away the propellor.
Getting air fed in from forwrd motion makes a difference in lift
generated, certainly.
Al Gerharter
Steve Hix wrote:
>
> In article 9...@jethro.Corp.Sun.COM, (Juan Carlos Barroux R. - SunService) writes:
> :>
> :> I've also read the same thing about hovering... Not with a full load
> :> of men,fuel, and ammo.
> :
> : If it could not hover with that load, then how could it take off?
>
>
> : Or am I sadly mistaken?
>
> to fly at a given altitude or payload.
>
> Some rescues at high levels in the Alps or Andes have been made at
> above the effective ceilings of the helicopters doing the work.
>
> They could get home by staying within ground effect until they ran
> off the edge of a local cliff (whose base, hopefully, was below the
> effective operating ceiling).
the thing is so ugly the Earth rejects it.
Al Gerharter
John Drake Selmer
Careful who you call an idiot. All of those of us who fly helicopters
might take exception. From slides in UH-1's to rolling takeoffs in
Blackhawks, such takeoffs and landings are indeed quite routine.
Kristan Roberge
j...@nai.net (Joe Claffey Jr.) wrote:
> >
> >UH-1, OH-6, OH-58, CH-47, CH-53, UH-60?
> >
> >Wouldn't like to try to play games with a Hind in any of those.
>
> IIRC, many US "transport" helicopters can carry weapons. I admit that
> they wouldn't be my first choice, but the very least you'd have is a guy
> hanging out the door with a Stinger. :-)
The UH-1s being the earliest example... but the Hind's carry armor as
well as troops and a HEAVY weapons load (what would you call 4 anti-tank
missiles, 128 57mm rockets, and either a 4-barrel 12.7mm minigun or
a 23mm twin-barrel cannon?!?)... and the CH-47 and CH-53s are rarely
armed with anything bigger than a couple 7.62mm miniguns (which would
hardly scratch the armor on a hind - its got about as much armor as
an Apache, though they probably designed it to survivable against
20mm HEI, that being the standard US cannon caliber, as opposed to the
23mm HEI like apache), not to mention the UH-60, while it can be
equipped with Hellfires... lacks a laser-designator, but rarely is
in any-case...
Max Hacker
Like I said I have been purposely trained to defeat the threat. I can do
many things with a OH-58 that would blow your mind. And with ATAS (air to
air stinger) please!
I will win at all costs. Surprise and Stealth!! Scouts Out!
Max Hacker
Speed means nothing in helicopters. The only thing speed does is get you to
the FLOT (forward line of troops) quick and get you killed because at high
speed you missed seeing those obstacles you just crashed into or the enemy
that just shot you out of the sky.
Until you've been there and done do not ASSUME anything. Because when you
ASSUME: you make a ASS out of U and ME.
Max Hacker
Get with the PROGRAM!!!!!! Armor on a helicopter is great if it helps a
little. I can down any helicopter in the world by simply throwing a rock
into the rotor system.
Obviously you are not a helicopter pilot and have never been in combat.
Max Hacker
Do I have to correct you again????
All tank crews in the world can and will shoot you down with the main gun.
Let see, what goes faster than the speed of sound and 2 miles in a couple
of seconds? Why it is a 120MM SABOT round!!!
Max Hacker
When I was flying scouts(0H-58) in the Army I would load that baby to the
tilt. Not only with mission gear and my personal gear but my Cobra's gear
and such things as mountain bikes, etc...
To get this crap off the ground I would bounce or scrap that bitch till I
achieved enough lift.
When I flew Hawks(UH-60) I never had this problem because it has the power.
John Covington
My last roommate is an honest to god Hind pilot in the U.S. Army down
at Fort Polk, and he tells me that the only time it can't hover is
when fully bagged out, and a desity altitude of over 4,500 feet.
By the way, the additional lift that allows overweight hellicopters
to get off the ground is provided by the more vertical lift component
produced by the airfoil of the roter disk, as it moves forward into
the wind, also incurring less induced flow, smaller vorticies, and
passing through effective transational lift (ETL).
One of my favorite things to do in flight school so far was to take
off with less that hover power! Just below the required torque, you
slowly skid along the ground, start to bounce along, and then
(hopefully) pass through ETL and lift off.
-==Buzz==-
Ken Devlin
>Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote:
>ske...@schools.minedu.govt.nz (Kevin Skelly) wrote:
>>
>> Can Mil 24 Hinds hover? I was talking to a friend of mine who ios a pilot in
>> Nelson (New Zealand) and he recalls reading that Hinds cant land or takeoff
>> vertically. He doesn't remember where he read it though... Can anybody out
>> there confirm this?
>>
>Your friend is an idiot... its a helicopter. It kinda has to land and
>takeoff vertically... doing a rolling takeoff with a tail-rotor is not
>a good idea...
I may be a little off base here, but, wasn't one of the reasons the
U.S. Army went to tires from skids (UH-1) was so it would be easier
for a max-loaded copter to gain forward speed??? Of course tires may
be just so it is easier to tow the aircraft around and for it to taxi
out to the lift-off pad.
kbd
Mikrodata
>century... the parallels with Vietnam are, with 20/20 hindsight,
/Niklas
John Drake Selmer
In article <MillerCC2-240...@140.229.23.137>,
MillerCC2%am6%pax...@mr.nawcad.navy.mil (Chad Miller) wrote:
>
> One of the best discussions of tranitional lift is in the Army Flight
> Manual, FM-102? darn, can't find copy and number is suspect. sorry.
>
The manual you are referring to is FM 1-203 Fundamentals of Flight, and
indeed it is a fine guide for anyone desiring to learn a bit about
helicopters.
Kristan Roberge
"Max Hacker" <maxh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Speed means nothing in helicopters. The only thing speed does is get you to
> the FLOT (forward line of troops) quick and get you killed because at high
> speed you missed seeing those obstacles you just crashed into or the enemy
> that just shot you out of the sky.
Speed means little in helicopters when dealing with SAMs or radar-directed
guns, but means alot when dealing with manually aimed guns / small-arms
fire. This discussion started with Hinds but you keep dragging the
limitations of flying an unarmored-scout into the equation... its not
my fault your stuck in a pissy little OH-58... The whole issue of
NOE flying only came to be of great importance with helicopters
after the introduction of SAMs..., and a agile helicopter can make
can NOE at just about any speed... the AH-64s do it alot faster than
the OH-58s do... the WHOLE design of the AH-56 was based around a
fast, dive-attack profile on enemy tanks but it was this very attack
profile which put it at risk of SAMs and was a factor in its
cancellation...
> Until you've been there and done do not ASSUME anything. Because when you
> ASSUME: you make a ASS out of U and ME.
Your plenty good at making an ass out of yourself... you don't need
any help from me.
Kristan Roberge
"Max Hacker" <maxh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> When I was flying scouts(0H-58) in the Army I would load that baby to the
> tilt. Not only with mission gear and my personal gear but my Cobra's gear
> and such things as mountain bikes, etc...
> To get this crap off the ground I would bounce or scrap that bitch till I
> achieved enough lift.
The bouncing and scrapping comes from being in-ground effect though...
> When I flew Hawks(UH-60) I never had this problem because it has the power.
Ever lose an engine in a loaded UH-60?!?
Kristan Roberge
"Max Hacker" <maxh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> The correct method to outmaneuver a fighter is this:
> First Hopefully your RWR detects him.
> Second Turn and head straight for him. This closes the distance and reduces
> the range of his missiles.
> Third. At the last possible moment turn 90 degrees from him and hide or
> launch a air to air missile if so equipped.
>
Fourth... Pray that there isn't another plane following a couple miles
behind the first one... Also it helps if the plane doesn't have a
gun...
Kristan Roberge
You'd better not miss with the first round, cause at 7-10 seconds
delay per shot your gonna have one angry helicopter... In any case
the speed of light is faster than the speed of sound, and if a helicopter
sees a muzzle flash from a tank-gun aimed at it, it only takes a fraction
of a second to move the helicopter out of the line of fire... either
pulling up on the collective or banking left/right will have the desired
effect...
In any case... in WWII US Navy ships used to throw WALLs of 20mm, 40mm
and 3" to 5" shells into the air to try and hit attacking dive bombers
and torpedo planes... you rarely saw them get a first shot hit with a
fast moving 5" shell... one of the reasons why airburst fuses
were invented...
Kristan Roberge
Being in combat and being a helicopter pilot are not the same thing.
I HAVE flown helicopters and am currently considering purchasing my
own (though the operating costs and my current financial outlook
is pointing me in the direction of a home-built).
As for the rock in the rotor, depends on the size of the rock and the
size of the rotor... I've been UNDER a CH-47s which flew through a
flock of ducks and geese, and boy it was MESSY when that 5 pound duck
got nailed by the rear rotor... You have to actually get the rock
(or tank gun shell, if your still hung up on that silliness) to hit
the rotor though... As the rotor spins, its quite possible to pass
things through it... a single tank-gun shell/cannon round travelling
at several thousand feet per second can quite easily pass between the
rotor blades.
Kristan Roberge
Aha,.. a scout pilot... that explains the attitude... nothing like
flying a helicopter that can be killed by small-arms fire... Depending
on where the stinger is when it detonates, it can be survived...
Max Hacker
Okay big shot, maybe you should explain your experiences with modern
helicopters, modern helicopter combat tactics, and the art of warfare on
the combined arms battlefield. I and many others will have your "book"
knowledge taken out and put out of its misery.
Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote in article
<4tau7b$m...@news.istar.ca>...
Max Hacker
Chalk one up to your modern combat helicopter experience. This is the
correct tactic and I have used it, have you? The whole tactic is to get the
enemy to overshoot you.
Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote in article
<4tav1b$m...@news.istar.ca>...
Paul J. Adam
In article <4tbldt$7...@news.bellglobal.com>, Andrew Jaremkow
<jo...@wchat.on.ca> writes
> Once again, the Hinds don't carry huge weapons loads AND troops. The
>use of Hinds as troop carriers is very unlikely. Other helicopters do
>the job of troop carrier much better, having far greater capacity. The
>Hind's combat abilities would be completely wasted by landing it (or
>even hovering it) to offload troops.
A note: in Afghanistan a popular tactic was to land the troop section,
then the Hinds would prowl until the advancing troops took fire and then
hammer the muhajeds. Alternatively, the Hinds would pin rebels with fire
while the troops closed in.
Not really applicable to large-scale conflict, of course, and these
tactics became much less popular once Stingers became more readily
available. Also, IIRC those Hinds tended to leave the ATGMs behind in
order to carry a few soldiers each.
--
"There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable and
praiseworthy."
Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"
Paul J. Adam pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk
Max Hacker
I have never lost a engine when flying hawks. This I compliment my
excellent crew chiefs.
Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote in article
<4tauu5$m...@news.istar.ca>...
Andrew Jaremkow
Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote:
>> Of course, any competent M1 or M1A1 gunner could put a 105mm/120mm
>> (respectively) sabot round through either of a Hind's windshields out
>> to about 3000 meters.
>Assuming of course the Hind didn't sideslip about 10 feet the moment
>they saw the muzzle flash from the M1's gun...
>You watched Rambo III much too often btw...
Engaging helicopters with modern tank main gun fire is a very
realistic option. The US Army has begun issuing the M830A1 HEAT-MP-T
round (Jane's Armour and Artillery Upgrades '95-'96), a saboted high
velocity HEAT round with a new fuzing system (possibly proximity),
reportedly for use in the anti-helicopter role. The Germans have been
modifying the laser rangefinder of their Leopard 2Is to permit shorter
reaction times when engaging helicopters with APFSDS (Jane's Armour
and Artillery '95-'96).
The ability to dodge the incoming fire assumes a great deal. It
assumes the Hind has seen the tank (a very big assumption), realizes
the shot was meant for him, and then manages to react quickly enough.
With muzzle velocities above 1,600 m/s, and velocity drops in the
order of 55 m/s/km it is going to take about two seconds for the round
to reach 3,000 m. Unless the helicopter is at extreme range, or
lurking behind cover it is in great danger. The Hind currently has no
ability to engage from behind cover, and extreme range engagements
with ATGM mean extreme exposure times and difficult acquisition of
targets.
Don't be so quick to dismiss the tank.
Andrew Jaremkow
jo...@wchat.on.ca
Andrew Jaremkow
Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote:
>> p.s. Did the US ARMY ever adaopt the anti-air equipment on the Abrams
>> for anti-helicopter work?
>Only the roof-mounted 12.7mm as far as I know... Who wants to volunteer
>to open a hatch, and stand-up to fire off a stinger with an anti-tank
>helicopter prowling around...
If the alternative is to sit around and be a defenceless target I'm
sure you'd get plenty of volunteers. The Stinger's excellent
performance against Hinds in Afghanistan would make most people eager
to take the shot.
The Americans now have the M830A1 HEAT-MP-T round, which is modified
to provide higher velocity and better fuzing against airborne targets.
Andrew Jaremkow
jo...@wchat.on.ca
Andrew Jaremkow
Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote:
>> IIRC, many US "transport" helicopters can carry weapons. I admit that
>> they wouldn't be my first choice, but the very least you'd have is a guy
>> hanging out the door with a Stinger. :-)
>The UH-1s being the earliest example... but the Hind's carry armor as
>well as troops and a HEAVY weapons load (what would you call 4 anti-tank
>missiles, 128 57mm rockets, and either a 4-barrel 12.7mm minigun or
>a 23mm twin-barrel cannon?!?).
Once again, the Hinds don't carry huge weapons loads AND troops. The
use of Hinds as troop carriers is very unlikely. Other helicopters do
the job of troop carrier much better, having far greater capacity. The
Hind's combat abilities would be completely wasted by landing it (or
even hovering it) to offload troops. (And don't even pretend those
rockets could be used while the troops are getting out...) The Hinds
will be circling the LZ waiting to pounce on opposition, while the
Hips do the landing.
If you want a real example of heavily armed transport helicopters look
to the various assault versions of the Hip, particularly the E model,
with 6 rocket pods as well as the ATGMs. Note that these wouldn't be
landing troops either, but doing the suppression mission instead.
Andrew Jaremkow
jo...@wchat.on.ca
A or C Davis
Max Hacker <maxh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in article
<01bb7c04$b8abc980$543bd8ce@NETCOM>...
> I have never lost a engine when flying hawks. This I compliment my
> excellent crew chiefs.
For all of the CE's that didn't see your post...I say Thank You Sir, but
would you kindly get your foot off of MY Greenhouse!!!<g>
--
SSG Chuck Davis-UH60L CrewChief
The cost of freedom ian't always free!
acd...@pwrnet.com
A or C Davis
John Drake Selmer <dr...@aonline.com> wrote in article
<drake-2407962101450001@ppp_24.aonline.com>...
> Careful who you call an idiot. All of those of us who fly helicopters
> might take exception. From slides in UH-1's to rolling takeoffs in
> Blackhawks, such takeoffs and landings are indeed quite routine.
Rolling takeoffs are indeed a TRUTH. Been there, done that.actually if you
are in a UH60A with ESSS tanks installed and full, its almost a must <G>
--
SSG Chuck Davis
The cost of freedom ian't always free
Andrew Jaremkow
Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote:
>"Max Hacker" <maxh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> Armor on a helicopter is great if it helps a
>> little. I can down any helicopter in the world by simply throwing a rock
>> into the rotor system.
>As for the rock in the rotor, depends on the size of the rock and the
>size of the rotor...
> You have to actually get the rock
>(or tank gun shell, if your still hung up on that silliness) to hit
>the rotor though... As the rotor spins, its quite possible to pass
>things through it... a single tank-gun shell/cannon round travelling
>at several thousand feet per second can quite easily pass between the
>rotor blades.
No one is going to waste time shooting tank rounds at the rotor when
there is a much larger and far more vulnerable fuselage hanging
beneath it.
Andrew Jaremkow
jo...@wchat.on.ca
Kristan Roberge
jo...@wchat.on.ca (Andrew Jaremkow) wrote:
>
> Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote:
>
> >> Of course, any competent M1 or M1A1 gunner could put a 105mm/120mm
> >> (respectively) sabot round through either of a Hind's windshields out
> >> to about 3000 meters.
>
> >Assuming of course the Hind didn't sideslip about 10 feet the moment
> >they saw the muzzle flash from the M1's gun...
>
> >You watched Rambo III much too often btw...
> The ability to dodge the incoming fire assumes a great deal. It
> assumes the Hind has seen the tank (a very big assumption), realizes
> the shot was meant for him, and then manages to react quickly enough.
> With muzzle velocities above 1,600 m/s, and velocity drops in the
> order of 55 m/s/km it is going to take about two seconds for the round
> to reach 3,000 m. Unless the helicopter is at extreme range, or
> lurking behind cover it is in great danger. The Hind currently has no
> ability to engage from behind cover, and extreme range engagements
> with ATGM mean extreme exposure times and difficult acquisition of
> targets.
> Don't be so quick to dismiss the tank.
I'm not dismissing the tank, I'm just saying that unless its a head-on
or tail-shot, or the gunner has 'led' the helicopter, the Hind is not
likely to be where the gun was aimed when the shell gets there... a
Hind moving at 180km/h (quite reasonable for them, they're top speed
is over 300 km/h) is moving 50m/s. 1 second after the tank-gun fires
the Hind has moved 50meters from its previous position.
Andrew Jaremkow
Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote:
>"Max Hacker" <maxh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> Do I have to correct you again????
>> All tank crews in the world can and will shoot you down with the main gun.
>> Let see, what goes faster than the speed of sound and 2 miles in a couple
>> of seconds? Why it is a 120MM SABOT round!!!
All tank crews...??? C'mon, lets not get carried away here. Hows about
"A well trained tank crew in a modern tank has a significant chance of
shooting you down with the main gun."
>You'd better not miss with the first round, cause at 7-10 seconds
>delay per shot your gonna have one angry helicopter...
No, you'll have one very nervous helicopter. Do you really think the
pilot will hang around and trade shots? Lets look at the 3,000m
engagement mentioned earlier, Hind vs Abrams. We'll assume the Hind
has Spiral, with a maximum velocity of 345 m/s (JAAU 95/96). We'll
also assume the Hind takes the same time as the Abrams to spot, react,
and shoot. Abrams has APFSDS with a muzzle velocity of over 1,600 m/s.
0:00 Bang! M1 fires. Hind spots firing. Hind gunner instantly (!)
starts engagement sequence..
0:01 M1 starts reloading.
0:02 Shot misses helicopter.
0:07 Spiral missile leaves launch rail. Hind must stay in LOS to
use
missile.
0:08 M1 fires second shot.
0:10 Second shot reaches Hind. Spiral still only ~ 1,000 m
downrange.
0:11 a) Crew cheers as flaming Hind plunges to the ground, or..
b) Sir, we missed again!
0:12 Abrams launches smoke. Spiral is only ~ 1,400 m downrange.
0:14 Smoke totally hides Abrams. Spiral is only ~ 2,400 m
downrange.
This is very simplistic, but it does point out that the tank can react
with lethal force faster than the helicopter. The tank will also have
time to escape...
Real engagements are more likely to read something like "Abrams never
sees the Hind as it hides between the trees. Abrams dies from Spiral
hit to side.", and "Hind pops up to look for targets. Hind never sees
Abrams in woods. Hind dies from APFSDS through engines."
> In any case
>the speed of light is faster than the speed of sound, and if a helicopter
>sees a muzzle flash from a tank-gun aimed at it, it only takes a fraction
>of a second to move the helicopter out of the line of fire... either
>pulling up on the collective or banking left/right will have the desired
>effect...
Once again you are making the wildly optimistic assumption that the
pilot (who usually isn't in control of the optics/sensors) has already
spotted the tank, is looking at it when it fires, knows instantly that
the puff of smoke kilometers away is from the main gun, decides that
it is meant for him, and reacts correctly in a very short space of
time.
>In any case... in WWII US Navy ships used to throw WALLs of 20mm, 40mm
>and 3" to 5" shells into the air to try and hit attacking dive bombers
>and torpedo planes... you rarely saw them get a first shot hit with a
>fast moving 5" shell... one of the reasons why airburst fuses
>were invented...
Please note that WWII naval AA fire did not have the advantage of
modern gun stabilization, fast sophisticated fire control computers,
environmental sensors, and laser rangefinders. Also note that the
APFSDS rounds from modern tanks are _very_ much faster and more
accurate at greater ranges than the weapons you mention. Furthermore
even the speedy Hind is over a hundred miles per hour slower than the
dive bombers you mention. Your example has little relevance to the
situation at hand. The Hind is an easier target facing a deadlier
opponent. Expect a significant proportion of first round kills,
especially if the helicopter is caught hovering.
Andrew Jaremkow
jo...@wchat.on.ca
Jim Herring
But, the M1 gun computer will calculate the lead so the round, 1 second
later, will meet the Hind. The computer is designed to hit moving targets
as well as stationary ones.
Kristan Roberge
"Max Hacker" <maxh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Chalk one up to your modern combat helicopter experience. This is the
> correct tactic and I have used it, have you? The whole tactic is to get the
> enemy to overshoot you.
Oh come on, its not like it isn't a well-established tactic. The Germans
figured it out in WWII. I figured it out when I was six.
Kristan Roberge
My point exactly, but Max seems hung-up on the shooting down a helicopter
with a tank-gun theory, and he did suggest a rock in the rotor...
> Andrew Jaremkow
> jo...@wchat.on.ca
>
>
Kristan Roberge
Jim Herring <mus...@bga.com> wrote:
>
>
> But, the M1 gun computer will calculate the lead so the round, 1 second
> later, will meet the Hind. The computer is designed to hit moving targets
> as well as stationary ones.
Its designed to moving tanks doing maybe 60mph on the outside, but
moving helicopter doing 160 mph?!?
Paul J. Adam
In article <4tqrti$e...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge
<Krob...@magi.com> writes
>Its designed to moving tanks doing maybe 60mph on the outside, but
>moving helicopter doing 160 mph?!?
Sure, why not? I mean, if you can program lead and deflection for 60mph,
why not just scale that? Also, a tank, crossing at 60mph at 500 metres,
generates the same angular rate as a helo flying at 180mph crossing at
1500 metres. (Mixed units, gah. So sue me.) It's no big deal to
engineer.
Besides, if the helo's crossing at 160 it's non-threat. If it's
transitioning to the hover to fire ATGMs, or flying to keep its
designator pointed at you while its missile guides, its crossing speeds
will be well within what a tank would achieve.
Especially given a proximity-fused round, I'd say helos should be very
wary of tank main armament.
Zhivan & Hilary Alach
.In article <00001ee0...@msn.com>, SShe...@msn.com says...
.>
.>As a former M1/M1A1 Abrams gunner, we were told that a fully loaded
.>Mi-24 'Hind' could NOT hover; it had to maintain some translational
.>lift by moving forward at something like 15-20 kts. (Don't know if
.>this applied to one specific model or the whole Mi-24 series.) Of
.>course, as fuel burn and/or ordinance expenditure lightened the load,
.>I'm sure it could then hover. Doesn't sound like a fun aircraft to
.>fly, though; nibbling at a rotor stall while in a hover?
.>
.>Of course, any competent M1 or M1A1 gunner could put a 105mm/120mm
.>(respectively) sabot round through either of a Hind's windshields out
.>to about 3000 meters.
.>
.>(heh heh heh!).
That's if that _friendly_ T-80 gunner hasn't fired a delicious
laser-guided AT-11 Refleks through your glacis plate from 5000m range
(and yes, I mean _glacis_... 700mm RHA penetration capability with
tandem warhead..
(probably not but it's the though that counts)
(or a 9BK27 125mm - triple warhead tank shell.. that could ruin your
day)
Mike Connor
Max Hacker wrote:
>
> Chalk one up to your modern combat helicopter experience. This is the
> correct tactic and I have used it, have you? The whole tactic is to get the
> enemy to overshoot you.
>
> > "Max Hacker" <maxh...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The correct method to outmaneuver a fighter is this:
> > > First Hopefully your RWR detects him.
> > > Second Turn and head straight for him. This closes the distance and
> reduces
> > > the range of his missiles.
> > > Third. At the last possible moment turn 90 degrees from him and hide or
> > > launch a air to air missile if so equipped.
> > >
> >
> > Fourth... Pray that there isn't another plane following a couple miles
> > behind the first one... Also it helps if the plane doesn't have a
> > gun...
> >
> >
> >
soon going at 400-500+ knts you arent going to 90 off and you'll be back
on the defensive.....so if you are going to turn in on him, and assuming
he's got all aspect ir weapons, you're going to have to go head to head
to atleast a mile, at this point the best bet is take it to a neutral
pass, maybe take a bite on him, then go either a 1 circle or 2 circle
fight depending on whether you have a better turn radius or turn rate
than the enemy. Of course this is all last ditch type tactics if one
isnt BVR capable.
Fubar2X
rus...@ihug.co.nz (Zhivan & Hilary Alach) writes:
>That's if that _friendly_ T-80 gunner hasn't fired a delicious
>laser-guided AT-11 Refleks through your glacis plate from 5000m range
>(and yes, I mean _glacis_... 700mm RHA penetration capability with
>tandem warhead..
>(probably not but it's the though that counts)
Since the glacis armor of an M1A1 is believed to be roughly the equivalent
of 1300mm of RHA against HEAT warheads, I'd say probably not. And that
"friendly" T-80 is toast.
Fubar2X
Jason Low
: >Its designed to moving tanks doing maybe 60mph on the outside, but
: >moving helicopter doing 160 mph?!?
:
: Sure, why not? I mean, if you can program lead and deflection for 60mph,
: why not just scale that? Also, a tank, crossing at 60mph at 500 metres,
: generates the same angular rate as a helo flying at 180mph crossing at
: 1500 metres. (Mixed units, gah. So sue me.) It's no big deal to
: engineer.
:
: Besides, if the helo's crossing at 160 it's non-threat. If it's
: transitioning to the hover to fire ATGMs, or flying to keep its
: designator pointed at you while its missile guides, its crossing speeds
: will be well within what a tank would achieve.
:
: Especially given a proximity-fused round, I'd say helos should be very
: wary of tank main armament.
Somehow I don't think its that simple. The helo won't be hovering except
on rescue cos it can fire ATGM while its moving. Yes it need to keep its
designator pointed but its not straight ahead, it has an angle which it
still can piviot from. I believe they would just fly an arc keeping the
designator just on the edge on its limit so it can manuveur in time to
aviod the shell.
In any case I don't think the tank has any chance of firing a shell b4 it
explode. Picture this
Tank crew: (thump,thump,thump) Mi24 closing in sir
Tank commander: Switch on the gun computer and fire when in sight.
(Mi-24 at NOG level at 174mph come into sight)
Helo-gunner: Comarade pilot, unfriendly armour ground enemy in sight.
Helo-pilot: Ok, we get it on next pass, comarade gunner
(Mi-24 pass tank in less than 1 second b4 it disapper into background)
Tank crew: Dammit sir! don't have time to fire shell
Tank commander:Then get us the hell out of here b4 it comes back!
Tank crew: Too late sir, helo firing rockets!
(Bam, Bam, Bam, BOOM!)
Helo-gunner: Target destroyed --
=============================================================================
[]_.- ' Q_,._ "Things bring you to reality as how fragile you are; at
`(*)_[2]___(*)Z> same moment you are doing something that nobody else is
able to do. The same moment you are seen as the best,
the fastest and somebody that cannot be touch, you are enormously fragile.
Because in a split second its gone."
Ayrton Senna de Silva
Paul J. Adam
In article <4uhgjg$3...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Jason Low
<no...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> writes
>
>Somehow I don't think its that simple. The helo won't be hovering except
>on rescue cos it can fire ATGM while its moving. Yes it need to keep its
>designator pointed but its not straight ahead, it has an angle which it
>still can piviot from.
Not all ATGM are laser-guided: lots of people still use wire-guided
missiles, and those still need you to be stationary or nearly so. While
you *can* manoevre violently, I don't think you'd have much success
keeping the designator locked on target in the process.
>I believe they would just fly an arc keeping the
>designator just on the edge on its limit so it can manuveur in time to
>aviod the shell.
>
>In any case I don't think the tank has any chance of firing a shell b4 it
>explode. Picture this
>
>Tank crew: (thump,thump,thump) Mi24 closing in sir
>Tank commander: Switch on the gun computer and fire when in sight.
>(Mi-24 at NOG level at 174mph come into sight)
>Helo-gunner: Comarade pilot, unfriendly armour ground enemy in sight.
>Helo-pilot: Ok, we get it on next pass, comarade gunner
>(Mi-24 pass tank in less than 1 second b4 it disapper into background)
>Tank crew: Dammit sir! don't have time to fire shell
>Tank commander:Then get us the hell out of here b4 it comes back!
>Tank crew: Too late sir, helo firing rockets!
>(Bam, Bam, Bam, BOOM!)
>Helo-gunner: Target destroyed --
You need to check the timescales involved - look at relative speed of
guns vs. rockets - and also investigate just what a camouflaged tank
looks like from a mile away, while you're flying NOE at 170mph. Target
acquistion is the biggest problem.
Besides, at 174mph it takes about twenty seconds to cover a mile. If the
helo passes in 'less than a second" it appeared about eighty yards from
the tank. I don't think either rockets or missiles would be beyond fuse
safety range at that point... the commander's .50cal would work okay,
though.
>=============================================================================
>
>[]_.- ' Q_,._ "Things bring you to reality as how fragile you are; at
>`(*)_[2]___(*)Z> same moment you are doing something that nobody else is
> able to do. The same moment you are seen as the best,
>the fastest and somebody that cannot be touch, you are enormously fragile.
>Because in a split second its gone."
>
> Ayrton Senna de Silva
--
Jason Low
Paul J. Adam (pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <4uhgjg$3...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Jason Low
--
=============================================================================
[]_.-' (Q_,._ "Things bring you to reality as how fragile you are; at
Max Hacker
HaHa!! Go back and read the other posts on this subject. Then maybe can see
the light.
Jason Low
Paul J. Adam (pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
: In article <4uhgjg$3...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Jason Low
: <no...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> writes
: missiles, and those still need you to be stationary or nearly so. While
: you *can* manoevre violently, I don't think you'd have much success
: keeping the designator locked on target in the process.
I don't understand, why does helo using wire guided have to hover? As long
as the gunner can see the missle and the target and the helo don't cut the
wire, the missle will still track right??
:
>
: >In any case I don't think the tank has any chance of firing a shell b4 it
: >explode. Picture this
: >
: >Tank crew: (thump,thump,thump) Mi24 closing in sir
: >Tank commander: Switch on the gun computer and fire when in sight.
: >(Mi-24 at NOG level at 174mph come into sight)
: >Helo-gunner: Comarade pilot, unfriendly armour ground enemy in sight.
: >Helo-pilot: Ok, we get it on next pass, comarade gunner
: >(Mi-24 pass tank in less than 1 second b4 it disapper into background)
: >Tank crew: Dammit sir! don't have time to fire shell
: >Tank commander:Then get us the hell out of here b4 it comes back!
: >Tank crew: Too late sir, helo firing rockets!
: >(Bam, Bam, Bam, BOOM!)
: >Helo-gunner: Target destroyed --
:
: You need to check the timescales involved - look at relative speed of
: guns vs. rockets - and also investigate just what a camouflaged tank
: looks like from a mile away, while you're flying NOE at 170mph. Target
: acquistion is the biggest problem.
The only chance that the helo pilot/gunner can see the tank will be too
late for it to fire rockets/missles. I reconised that, NEXT PASS would be
my best suggestion.
If target acquistion is a problem, I guess rockets would be used than,
pure dumb-fire kick ass rockets .
: Besides, at 174mph it takes about twenty seconds to cover a mile. If the
: helo passes in 'less than a second" it appeared about eighty yards from
: the tank. I don't think either rockets or missiles would be beyond fuse
: safety range at that point... the commander's .50cal would work okay,
: though.
:
Helo would pass the tank, turn around, head towards target at another
direction, pops up and move forward, straff rockets towards tank, b4 the
tank could even turn its turret towards the helo's new direction.
helo gunner's .30cal chaingun would shred tank commander b4 he can say,"
May god save our souls!"
Paul J. Adam
In article <4unh9h$1...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Jason Low
<no...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> writes
>Paul J. Adam (pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk) wrote:
>: Not all ATGM are laser-guided: lots of people still use wire-guided
>: missiles, and those still need you to be stationary or nearly so. While
>: you *can* manoevre violently, I don't think you'd have much success
>: keeping the designator locked on target in the process.
>
>I don't understand, why does helo using wire guided have to hover? As long
>as the gunner can see the missle and the target and the helo don't cut the
>wire, the missle will still track right??
Two big 'as longs' there: manoevering low means you're risking snagging
the wire on the ground, and increases the chance of something blocking
your view and breaking the wire.
Also, the missile is being commanded to the line of sight of the gunner.
If the helicopter is manoevering, that line of sight is changing
constantly, and the missile continually correcting onto it. This equates
to sending Murphy an engraved invitation to the party.
>: You need to check the timescales involved - look at relative speed of
>: guns vs. rockets - and also investigate just what a camouflaged tank
>: looks like from a mile away, while you're flying NOE at 170mph. Target
>: acquistion is the biggest problem.
>
>The only chance that the helo pilot/gunner can see the tank will be too
>late for it to fire rockets/missles. I reconised that, NEXT PASS would be
>my best suggestion.
You are *not* flying over the enemy. With or behind the tanks are the
supporting infantry. Behind that are the second wave. Both have an
assortment of weapons, which they will gladly demonstrate on your
helicopter.
>: Besides, at 174mph it takes about twenty seconds to cover a mile. If the
>: helo passes in 'less than a second" it appeared about eighty yards from
>: the tank. I don't think either rockets or missiles would be beyond fuse
>: safety range at that point... the commander's .50cal would work okay,
>: though.
>:
>
>Helo would pass the tank, turn around, head towards target at another
>direction, pops up and move forward, straff rockets towards tank, b4 the
>tank could even turn its turret towards the helo's new direction.
Again, you really need to look at speeds and distances. If the helo
appears a thousand yards away from the tank (already *well* within range
of every battlefield air defence system) it will need over ten seconds
to fly over the top of that tank. That tank, all the other tanks, are
firing back: with everything from roof MGs to (for those aimed the right
way) main gun rounds. The Bradleys accompanying the tanks are firing
their 25mm cannon. The infantrymen are joining in with their small-arms
and the occasional Stinger. The helicopter is having a short and
exciting life.
You don't get this close. You fire from 2-3 miles, preferably using a
mast- or roof-mounted sight from the hover, so after firing you expose
almost nothing while your missile tracks. When it hits, you move to a
new location, pop up to fire and then drop down again: you don't hover
in sight, or fly around in view, because the enemy has too many weapons
designed to kill you while you do that.
Why do you think the latest Apache has its Longbow radar on the mast,
above the rotors?
>helo gunner's .30cal chaingun would shred tank commander b4 he can say,"
>May god save our souls!"
Which tank? There's not just one out there, there's probably a dozen or
more. And most commanders can fire the cupola MG from under armour. If
he's in range of your machine gun, you're in range of his... not to
mention lots and lots of other weapons. Remember, tanks operate with
infantry support, and the infantry ride in Bradleys or Warriors with
their own armament.
Max Hacker
I wish all you people could have gone to flight school with me. Then and
maybe then you could truly understand how Scout and Attack helicopter tank
engagements really work.
Kristan Roberge
"Paul J. Adam" <pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
> In article <4uhgjg$3...@enyo.uwa.edu.au>, Jason Low
> <no...@tartarus.uwa.edu.au> writes
> >
> >Somehow I don't think its that simple. The helo won't be hovering except
> >on rescue cos it can fire ATGM while its moving. Yes it need to keep its
> >designator pointed but its not straight ahead, it has an angle which it
> >still can piviot from.
>
> missiles, and those still need you to be stationary or nearly so. While
> you *can* manoevre violently, I don't think you'd have much success
> keeping the designator locked on target in the process.
You CAN'T ground-fire a wire-guided missile and be moving (say from
an IFV) because you might drive over / cut the wires and lose the
signal. But in an aircraft this isn't a problem (until the wire catches
on a tree branch at 100 knots...). The TOWs were first designed for
use on the AH-56 Cheyenne, a helicopter designed to make DIVING
attacks on tank-formations at high-speed (above 230 knots) in a similar
profile to the Illuyshin IL-2 Stormavik attack-plane of WWII fame
(there were IL-2 pilots with hundreds of tank-kills by war's end).
> >(Bam, Bam, Bam, BOOM!)
> >Helo-gunner: Target destroyed --
>
> You need to check the timescales involved - look at relative speed of
> guns vs. rockets - and also investigate just what a camouflaged tank
> looks like from a mile away, while you're flying NOE at 170mph. Target
> acquistion is the biggest problem.
The current Soviet Anti-tank helicopters carry a thermograph as I recall
since their PRIMARY target are likely to be M1s, which show up VERY hot
thanks to that Gas-Turbine.
Kristan Roberge
"Paul J. Adam" <pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Why do you think the latest Apache has its Longbow radar on the mast,
> above the rotors?
So they can sweep a 360 degree arm obviously, Putting a radar in
the nose doesn't let you see what's beside or behind you.
Matt Clonfero
In message <4ut0vm$5...@news.istar.ca> Kristan Roberge wrote:
> > Why do you think the latest Apache has its Longbow radar on the mast,
> > above the rotors?
>
> So they can sweep a 360 degree arm obviously, Putting a radar in
> the nose doesn't let you see what's beside or behind you.
This is truly a display of ignorance. The principle advantage of
mounting your sensor on the rotor mast is it allows the aircraft to
hover behind blocking terrain and still see the target without exposing
the whole airframe. The MMS is the best solution, followed by the cheapo
method used on the Lynx of a roof mounted sight. This means that the rotor
blades are exposed during your STA phase. Worst is the chin mounted sight,
where the whole of the aircraft (save the bottom of the undercarriage)
must be exposed.
Aetherem Vincere
Matt.
--
===============================================================================
Matt Clonfero (ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk) | To err is human,
My employer & I have a deal - they don't | To forgive is not Air Force Policy.
speak for me, and I don't speak for them. | -- Anon, ETPS
Kristan Roberge
ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk (Matt Clonfero) wrote:
>
> In message <4ut0vm$5...@news.istar.ca> Kristan Roberge wrote:
>
> > > Why do you think the latest Apache has its Longbow radar on the mast,
> > > above the rotors?
> >
> > So they can sweep a 360 degree arm obviously, Putting a radar in
> > the nose doesn't let you see what's beside or behind you.
>
> This is truly a display of ignorance. The principle advantage of
> mounting your sensor on the rotor mast is it allows the aircraft to
> hover behind blocking terrain and still see the target without exposing
> the whole airframe.
I simply saw no reason to re-state the obvious. If people don't know
about MMS's by now then there's little hope for the future...
But he wasn't asking about why the put sights on the rotor head, he
was asking about why they put the radar on the rotor head. Since the
MMW hellfires are (A) Fire & Forget, and (B) targeted by a radar
unit, it makes alot more sense to put it on a piece of the
airframe that lets you sweep the largest area without being obstructed
by part of the airframe. If you roof-mounted it you could see aft,
and if stuck it on the tail-boom you couldn't see forward. Mounting
on the underbelly exposes the whole helicopter but won't show what's
above you.
Paul J. Adam
In article <4ut0ep$4...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge
<Krob...@magi.com> writes
>> missiles, and those still need you to be stationary or nearly so. While
>> you *can* manoevre violently, I don't think you'd have much success
>> keeping the designator locked on target in the process.
>
>You CAN'T ground-fire a wire-guided missile and be moving (say from
>an IFV) because you might drive over / cut the wires and lose the
>signal. But in an aircraft this isn't a problem (until the wire catches
>on a tree branch at 100 knots...). The TOWs were first designed for
>use on the AH-56 Cheyenne, a helicopter designed to make DIVING
>attacks on tank-formations at high-speed (above 230 knots) in a similar
>profile to the Illuyshin IL-2 Stormavik attack-plane of WWII fame
>(there were IL-2 pilots with hundreds of tank-kills by war's end).
Yes: but watch the way the wire loops and drags and breaks on the
ground... The Cheyenne attacked from high enough for this not to be such
a problem, and it was cancelled when such an attack profile proved to be
unduly hazardous to the helicopter. Flying NOE, you'd stay still to
shoot. (Based on experience of wire-guided torpedoes, not missiles: if
anyone knows different, pipe up.)
>> You need to check the timescales involved - look at relative speed of
>> guns vs. rockets - and also investigate just what a camouflaged tank
>> looks like from a mile away, while you're flying NOE at 170mph. Target
>> acquistion is the biggest problem.
>
>The current Soviet Anti-tank helicopters carry a thermograph as I recall
>since their PRIMARY target are likely to be M1s, which show up VERY hot
>thanks to that Gas-Turbine.
And their other targets are Challengers, Bradleys, HMMVs, Warriors...
Also, "shoot every IR source" lends itself superbly to a decoy plan.
Unless you start verifying targets visually, you could waste a lot of
missiles on industrial space heaters, for instance (big thermal plume,
has to be a M-1...)
Paul J. Adam
In article <4ut0vm$5...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge
>> above the rotors?
>
>So they can sweep a 360 degree arm obviously, Putting a radar in
>the nose doesn't let you see what's beside or behind you.
No. The radar's there for the same reason the Lynx AH.1 has its TOW
sight on the roof, or the OH-58D has the sensor pod above the rotors: to
allow engagement with only the sensors exposed, the remainder of the
helicopter concealed.
Ian Warren
Kristan Roberge <Krob...@magi.com> wrote:
>"Paul J. Adam" <pa...@jrwlynch.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>> Why do you think the latest Apache has its Longbow radar on the mast,
>> above the rotors?
>So they can sweep a 360 degree arm obviously, Putting a radar in
>the nose doesn't let you see what's beside or behind you.
And obviously it can sweep an area from cover, as the antenna is
higher
Matt Clonfero
In message <4uvtu8$c...@news.istar.ca> Kristan Roberge wrote:
> But he wasn't asking about why the put sights on the rotor head, he
> was asking about why they put the radar on the rotor head. Since the
> MMW hellfires are (A) Fire & Forget, and (B) targeted by a radar
> unit, it makes alot more sense to put it on a piece of the
> airframe that lets you sweep the largest area without being obstructed
> by part of the airframe. If you roof-mounted it you could see aft,
> and if stuck it on the tail-boom you couldn't see forward. Mounting
> on the underbelly exposes the whole helicopter but won't show what's
> above you.
Since the MMW Hellfires (a) fire forwards and (b) fire at ground targets,
it would seem spurious to suggest that the MMS is used to allow them to be
fired at targets above and to the rear of the helicopter.
Kristan Roberge
ma...@aetherem.demon.co.uk (Matt Clonfero) wrote:
>
> In message <4uvtu8$c...@news.istar.ca> Kristan Roberge wrote:
>
> > But he wasn't asking about why the put sights on the rotor head, he
> > was asking about why they put the radar on the rotor head. Since the
> > MMW hellfires are (A) Fire & Forget, and (B) targeted by a radar
> > unit, it makes alot more sense to put it on a piece of the
> > airframe that lets you sweep the largest area without being obstructed
> > by part of the airframe. If you roof-mounted it you could see aft,
> > and if stuck it on the tail-boom you couldn't see forward. Mounting
> > on the underbelly exposes the whole helicopter but won't show what's
> > above you.
>
> Since the MMW Hellfires (a) fire forwards and (b) fire at ground targets,
> it would seem spurious to suggest that the MMS is used to allow them to be
> fired at targets above and to the rear of the helicopter.
It would STILL be nice to know what's behind and above you before you
fire the missile. A dark-green helicopter hovering in trees will be
hard to spot from say, a fast-moving Jet flying at altitude, but
its hard to miss a missile launch from the middle of a forest.
Paul J. Adam
In article <4vacip$n...@news.istar.ca>, Kristan Roberge
<Krob...@magi.com> writes
>It would STILL be nice to know what's behind and above you before you
>fire the missile. A dark-green helicopter hovering in trees will be
>hard to spot from say, a fast-moving Jet flying at altitude, but
>its hard to miss a missile launch from the middle of a forest.
Is it just me, or do I hear the frantic clatter of CAD workstations
producing MMW anti-radar missiles?
Flying around with a 94GHz lighthouse on the masthead sounds a little
dangerous to me. I'd want to limit the use and control the direction of
that scan, personally, not be a beacon.