ijozicBased on the pics showing the AN/AAR-60 MILDS UV-sensors it looks like they have had the AMPS-M suite made by BIRD Aerospace, Israel..
Which pics exactly? From the photo on the previous page, it doesn’t look like AN/AAR-60 sensors to me – the frame is different. They also don’t mention Cobras here:
http://www.deagel.com/Helicopter-Warners-and-Sensors/ANAAR-60-MILDS_a001597001.aspx
Did the USMC Super Cobras have some MAWS system installed? E.g. these photos are claiming to show the ones bought from USMC, but I’m not sure if they came with MAWS or it was subsequently installed.
http://defence.pk/threads/us-to-give-super-cobra-helicopters-to-turkey.132270/
ijozicWhy not simply accept the fact that these systems, too, have their limit in efficiency and that their presence does not automatically preclude operating with impunity?
Well, that’s a given, but it would be nice to know some more details on the installed systems and their capabilities and limitations (e.g. weather conditions and so on). Like, e.g. perhaps it brings many false alarms so the pilot kept it off.
If they were on and functioning properly, I’d expect the MAWS system to be capable of detecting the incoming missile and launch flares. Since flares were not launched, it’s easy to assume that the system was not working for whatever reason (be it maintenance, pilot negligence, etc.).
ijozicIt seems to be a common tactic for most defense ministries to assign the crash to technical reasons by default before sufficient information is gathered.
I was surprised the missile seems to have hit the tail causing it to detach. If it hit the engine as I’d expect, the unlucky crew might have stood a chance to bring the helicopter down in a more controllable manner.
ijozicThat said, even if the R-60 is fired from 10-20 Kms it still gives the enemy fighter enough time to carry out a hard turn and evade the R-60. Thereafter, it becomes extremely difficult for the R-60 to re establish a lock on and chase the target again. Even if it does establish a lock on, it is travelling at speeds of Mach 3 and above. Naturally at that speed it will run out of fuel before it reaches the target.
These kinds of ranges should not be mentioned in any realistic context of this tiny missile.
ijozicIn both cases the answer is the same. You develop a requirement to meet a threat….you evaluate the plausible scenarios likely in a given time frame and you get your threat gradient. Theres nothing in that matrix that presents a threat that F-35C fleet air defence cant meet. At least in the context of plausible fleet operations.
My point was that you keep presenting the F-35C as being developed from the get go to meet the Navy requirements, rather then in a way being a USMC size restricted platform enforced on the Navy and then adapted as much as possible to suit their needs better. Will they be able to get by with it, yes, probably, but that’s besides the point here.
ijozicThere’s no AVMF Backfire Regiments and no SIOP for them to be needed. Threats to a battlegroup now are mainly subsurface or based around heavily missile-laden strikefighters which, being heavily missile laden, aren’t great air-air performers. The need for more than F-35 type fleet air defence is not really there.
Just because the Navy had to compromise with the F-35, doesn’t mean that that they wouldn’t prefer something better.
ijozicI recollect the last time the Russian fighter or was it intelligence aircraft shut off their transponder there was huge hue and cry on how civilian aircraft flight had to be shut for an hour 🙂
I think that was the pair of Tu-160 bombers supposedly cutting through a civilian traffic corridor in the English channel? To be fair, I don’t see any mention that the US aircraft was doing the same, but in any case, I’d expect a much bigger civilian traffic density going through the Channel, hence the outcry.
ijozicThe same accounts for any laser guided AGM-114. And most likely even for the AGM-114L version where the target has to be locked by the Longbow all the way until the missile hits (?). AFAIK, the Hellfire does not have its own on-board radar, only a radar seeker working in millimeter wave spectrum and is de facto a SARH type missile and not a true f&f (?) If this assumption is true, then developing a radar guided variant makes zero sense for the Ka-52 as the chopper has a nose mounted radar and would have to stay exposed, anyway.
Your assumption is not true; why do you keep assuming stuff and replying instead of doing some reading beforehand?
We also have Iraq selecting the Mi-28N over the Apache Longbow.. What now?
‘Selected over’ Apache Longbow? The Mi-28NE order was done in 2012. where the country’s leadership has turned away from the U.S. so purchasing their helicopters was definitely not an option. But please, you’re welcome to post sources which would argue that the Iraqis ‘selected’ Mi-28NE based on its prowess ‘over Longbow Apache’ rather than just being another assumption on your part.
ijozicProvided the photographer is correct, and this is a MiG-31BSM (upgraded MiG-31BS to BM standard?), then here is an example of a “BM” with armament although they are apparently the standard R-33 variants.
There are plenty of photos showing operationally armed BM’s, but the point was there seem to be none showing R-33S missiles on either the ‘old’ MiG-31B/BS’ or the newer BM/BSM’s.
ijozicShorad defense that US actually just DOESN’T HAVE. Still I bet 100 to one that they wouldn’t even try to develop something even superficially resembling AGM-114L or Brimstone. Not a place for such weaponries in their own doctrine.
Really? Avenger? Hermes?
ijozic9K121 Vikhr is not command guided (or SACLOS type, to be more precise), the 9M120 Ataka-V is.. Vikhr is a beam rider with laser sensors facing backwards. And yes, it’s quite cheap due to lack of seeker, some ~$20k compared to ~$120k for AGM-114M/N
Technically, yes, but in the context of fire and forget discussion it amounts to the same thing as the helicopter has to keep the target locked (while being exposed) all the way till the missile hits.
1. Can Hellfire engage more targets at a time? How?
2. It’s a semi-active laser guided missile, it, too, needs to have its target illuminated the whole time. The only difference being that it has its own seeker, so theoretically the target can be illuminated by SF operators on the ground..
The only fire&forget Hellfire is the MMW radar guided version AGM-114L which only constitutes a small portion of the overall arsenal and is exclusive to AH-64D/E only. Unit cost is $160,000, AFAIK..
Do you read what you quote? Hint: RF-seeker means it’s radar guided. I also specifically mentioned Longbow radar and RF Hellfire missiles:
And the fact is that Russian helicopter ATGM weapons are like 20 years behind the US (when they introduced the Longbow radar and RF Hellfire missiles) and are still relying on 80’s SACLOS Sturm/Ataka/Vikhr missiles and were for a long time relying on the optical systems only
Hence the f&f ATGM might be a feature which is very nice to have, no doubt about that, but in the end the expensive missiles might just end up on the shelves collecting dust for years..
It’s not “very nice to have”, it’s essential to have, even if it ends up unused in a real war like 99% of the weapons made, but they were still made and served a purpose (of e.g. deterrence).
On one side we have the Russian efforts to develop and place such weapon systems in service on their attack helicopters and the Indians selecting the Apache Longbow, while on the other side we have your gut-feeling opinion.
ijozicUpon having seen the videos from Syria where the vintage Mi-24Ps are overflying combat areas as if it was a nearby schoolyard.. I just don’t think that Russians care too much about these things.. Whatever their combat doctrine is, it’s obviously much more straightforward than what we are used to in the west.
What exactly are you implying here? It sounds pretty outrageous..
Flying low-level support missions over unknown terrain will get you exposed, but since the enemy is lightly armed and ill-trained, the risks might be acceptably low. It all depends on a given mission and the situation on the ground.
But, that a few of these videos make you feel confident to make such conclusions on the Russian doctrine.. wow. What about all those videos where the helicopters were attacking preplanned targets with rockets at medium speed and altitude and then disengaging at stand off ranges while dropping countermeasures? Perhaps they do care about such things as minimizing exposure to counter fire?
ijozicWhile Georgia was a wakeup call for Russia, it is also safe to say it was a poorly planned incursion. In which Russians have learn er their lesson.. not to overextend.
Ukraine. How many helios have Russia lost so far..? What Russia is doing in Ukraina is make sure to stay in the game, but again not overextend.
The point was that conflicts where Russia has stakes in will happen and the opponents might be well equipped/trained. Just because Georgia and Ukraine conflicts went the way they did doesn’t mean they couldn’t have gone differently or that future conflicts will remain at such low levels. What if the Georgian forces were better trained, motivated and capable than they were? What if the Russian supported areas in Ukraine were collapsing before Ukrainian armed forces and the Russians were forced to get somewhat more actively involved, e.g. by providing assault helicopters to the rebels? The point is that it’s impossible to predict what may come in the future and the Russian armed forces should be prepared (budget permitting again) for such events/opponents however unlikely they might seem. Anything else would be naive and foolish. But, let’s not sidetrack the main topic further.
ijozicWhy a fire forget missile would avoid a Shorad system to do it’s work and one with another guidance system instead not?
A fire and forget guidance system will grant greater range, best resistance to countermeasures greater velocity or precision? Will it eventually discriminate an hidden target better than the helicopter own sensors?
He probably presumed you have some basic knowledge about how these things work. Put simply, currently the Russian ATGM missiles can engage only one target at a time and the helicopter needs to stay completely exposed to track the target with their nose mounted sights while the missile is guided towards the target leaving it open to counter fire, whether by AAA, SAM’s, tanks, IFV’s, whatever. The US was in the same situation in the 80’s so they developed a mast mounted radar and RF guided missiles which allowed their helicopters to obtain the radar picture while being virtually in cover and then to launch the missiles at them without getting exposed to counter fire. The radar also allows for all-weather engagement capability, target identification and it has a longer useful range than the optical systems, yes. Obviously, the Russians are aware of these advantages as they are trying to equip their latest helicopters with radars and hopefully matching missiles.
ijozicDon’t think Russia has any plan go against such adversaries.. Putin may be a opertunist about world arenas. But he is not stupid. He knows Russia could never sustain the cost and loss of life in a conflict like that. Russia is carefull not to overextend themself.
Sorry, but please don’t drag my post down to the level of discussion involving Russian president’s plans and such trite. The recent conflicts in Ukraine and Georgia clearly demonstrate that facing more sophisticated SHORAD systems is quite a possibility.
The armed forces (especially those of a world power) should train and be equipped to face any potential enemy at the very least for the sake of deterrence. And the fact is that Russian helicopter ATGM weapons are like 20 years behind the US (when they introduced the Longbow radar and RF Hellfire missiles) and are still relying on 80’s SACLOS Sturm/Ataka/Vikhr missiles and were for a long time relying on the optical systems only (things are starting to change recently with the Ka-52’s Arbalet radar and the potential mast mounted radar on the Mi-28N, but there’s still no RF missile to be seen).
Sign In
