The rotors on Sikorsky’s S-70 Raider prototype appear closer together than those on Ka-52.

Maybe they are less susceptible to flex and also I’d assume the S-70 relies on the push propeller at high speeds it’s less susceptible to this since this problem usually occurs at high speeds (there are warning signals when this condition is approached) especially when combined with the right pedal input (to counteract the yaw tendency to the left).

It’s all nicely described here:

http://www.simhq.com/_air13/air_427a.html

EDIT: Just checked – the S-97 seems to control the pitch via the variable pitch push propeller I guess so the main rotor can be rigid.

Sticking to the same photo, I wonder why they ultimately chose the sensor turret to be located below the nose? IIRC, there were several test configurations and the location above the cockpit would allow for operation behind a cover while in hover (e.g. like on the Tiger helicopter). The final location has much less blind spots I guess when looking down, but since the Ka-52 doesn’t have a turreted cannon, I don’t suppose that’s very restrictive unless it is intended to be operated at somewhat higher altitudes, rather than NOE? I guess the lower rotor doesn’t leave that much space, but the Tiger doesn’t have a high rotor neither, but it does have a much less bulky non-tandem cockpit which tapers down sharply so it obstructs this sensor location much less..

OLS-35 can designate ground targets.

How exactly would it be useful for dropping LGB’s when it’s mounted on top of the nose?

I’ll take your declaration that the military helicopter is dead with a grain of salt. There was an excellent article in AFM recently about Ukraininan helicopter operations during the recent Russian invasion. I take it you subscribe to AFM and read that article? It stated that Ukranian gunship losses were primarily due to poor tactics and a complete lack of any kind of a self-defence suite. Also if you are right the Russian forces themselves are wasting large sums of money on ~ 450-500 Mil-24/35/28 and Ka-52 gunships which according to you are all scrap metal.

Exactly. IIRC, Ukraine uses the old Mi-24’s (e.g. V or P variants) which are not upgraded (so they have only basic optical systems and their situational awareness is quite low – e.g. no thermal sights, paper maps, etc. as are their defensive capabilities) AND they were used in chaotic anti-insurgency operations where it’s common to fly over a potentially hostile territory (thus can be easily ambushed with IR SAM’s) and their coordination with the ground troops was probably non-existent. I really fail to see how this would be relevant for the Polish context which would be primarily stand-off anti-armor use (over friendly territory) at which ranges they are pretty much untouchable for the IR missiles. Not to mention superior thermal optics, Longbow radar, defensive suite, digital maps with real time datalink, UAV’s, etc. which would make them much less vulnerable in other missions as well. And that’s without getting into training levels – I’d expect Polish pilots would be MUCH better trained than the poorly funded Ukrainian Air Force.

Seriously, think about it. Ejection seats, canopy glass, Friend & Foe transponders, nossles, air inlets, wings alll the VHF and communication atennas, sensors tubes. there are so many commonalties between the different Flankers.

But these are only major components and not the equipment fit, wirings and god only knows what little differences significant enough to warrant a part from a different provider which might not be available later on. Look at the mess with the Eurofighter Tranche 1 planes.

I don’t think you can pull such general conclusions without some technical manuals or insider knowledge on the rate of commonality regarding the parts.

I agree about 30 km is maximum effective range probably for ideal circumstances, with slight deviation from that and the missile will fall short. But again, this applies to all missiles. You talk about head-on ranges, then change topic to maneuvering, or less optimal conditions, compare apples to apples, R-73’s 30 km is in same conditions as AIM-120B’s 43 km, R-27R’s 35 km, and its in same conditions as R-60MK’s 15km. Latter two are even given in the same d**n manual, two pages apart.

Again, these are not missile ranges, the numbers from that table are the maximum supported ranges of values by the FCS to calculate the launch authorization depending on the target’s relative height and speed. I have no idea of a realistic usecase; maybe if a Black Bird was coming straight at you at full speed against a clear sky would you be able to get the range authorization at that maximum value, but even then the seeker most probably won’t lock on at that range.

Probably? Yeah very scientific. 13 km tail chase is probably absolute maximum againist a slow aircraft AT SAME ALTITUDE, which is surely at 10km altitude. It drops true, but again, this applies to all missiles.

Bull****. No way can that missile attack a receding target at 13 km at the same altitude. Its rocket motor burns for only for like 4-5 seconds to speed it up to 2.5 Mach and it’s IR guided. How do you expect that missile to keep flying straight and level for the next 10+ kms with no power, genius? Those numbers are for relatively much lower and slower flying targets and thus strictly theoretical.

If all speeds/altitudes concerned, 12 km is a range where both BVR and WVR missiles can reach highly depending on circumstances, and neither type of missiles can guarantee a kill. On extreme example, at sea level, it seems an AIM-120B or R-27R can only reach 6 km range in tail-on scenario, and a R-60MK can only reach 3 km. I don’t have info about R-73 for this condition, but it should reach somewhere between R-60 and AIM-120, possibly 5 km.

Again, I don’t know where to start here. R-60MK at 3 km? That’s actually a realistic HEAD ON value at altitude IF the conditions and the target are even allowing that puny seeker to actually lock onto something head-on at that range (and that number comes from Luftwaffe MiG-29 pilots). At tail chase, you have an example in the Su-27SK manual. The R-27R has LESS than 3 km range under 5 km of altitude for the specified type of target, while the RE has 6 km (again, LESS than; the 6 km is the maximum depending on the speed of the aircraft and the target). And if the R-27R has a 3 km maximum, you can be sure the R-60MK has roughly maybe 500-700 meters only in the same conditions and I’m probably being generous here.

Your problem is, you are grossly overestimating range of BVR missiles, and grossly underestimating the range of WVR missiles.

Now you’re just inventing stuff. Nowhere in my posts have I even mentioned the range of BVR missiles to even be able to “overestimate” them; I was just making fun of your posts and stated ranges of these short range missiles and your conclusion on the uselessness of BVR missiles at these ranges.

In fact Su-27SK manual shows R-73 has nearly the same range as R-27T for head-on attacks, and even higher range for tail-on attacks. So it seems BVR missiles are not actually “kill-from-100km” missiles, and WVR missiles are not only “shoot-at-point-blank-range” missiles like they were in 60’s.

Oh, so the short range missiles have somehow magically evolved with some new revolutionary propulsion, but medium range missiles development has been stalled for some reason that only makes sense to you.

The R-73 and R-27T don’t have the same range (they do have the same seeker). The R-27T has the same engine as the R-27R so it should have pretty much the same kinematic performance, but noticeably reduced by the extra drag induced by the blunt seeker head and probably the different guidance algorithm (hence the lower numbers compared to R variant). Now, both head-on and the tail chase numbers, as said above, are some extreme values against a much lower and fast (head-on) or slow (tail-chase) flying target. And since the R-73 actually has much less drag than the R-27T and is lighter, it’s quite possible that in these perverse scenarios it achieves a longer gliding range. But in a realistic scenario where you’re chasing a fighter at the same level, the R-27T with its longer burning engine and thus higher top speed would obviously have a longer reach.

Idiocy is in that you say manual is wrong, and you are right when speaking about R-60MK’s range. How can you be more right than the very manufacturer’s of missile & aircraft?? Manual says R-60MK can be used at 15km, head-on, they even bothered including a large graph only for showing this information. You say “maybe on mars”, laugh at the MiG/Vympel’s own data, and pull a number from your a** without any source or calculation; for the missile designed by Vympel, fired by MiG… They say to their own AF pilots “you can fire this missile from 15 km at these speed&altitude conditions”. Then a forum guy makes a mk1 eyeball inspection on the missile, mixes wikipedia with other forum/article knowledge, and with his limited understanding of the missile, he concludes its seeker is inadaquate or its fuel is not enough. I didn’t call YOU idiot, but what you did was plain idiocy.

Again, the manual doesn’t say that, those numbers are ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM values for the FCS to grant you authorization. They have nothing to do with the missiles kinematic range or even less with the realistic seeker ranges. To get a hint, you can take a look at the next row of the manual which states the suggested values to launch at when the FCS is not able to give you the authorization. E.g. for the R-73 it states that the head on range is from 1.5 to current altitude + 5; so, if you’re at 10 km height head-on, the absolute maximum to fire at is 15 km and this says nothing about the relative speed or altitude of the target.

Of course, you can question my interpretion (like you say those are absolute max ranges, etc), but I don’t think anyone can question the validity of the manual, other than a typo maybe.

Your interpretation of the manual needs no questioning unlike some other things. For instance, my sanity for even getting involved in this pointless discussion.

So whats the real benefit of carrying a BVR missile here? I am not questioning the BVR missiles in general (its fine if you use them at 40-50 km and hope for a kill), but at 12 km, they aren’t any more useful than a R-73 or an AIM-9. In fact, they have inferior kinematics, have much more weight&drag to degrade aircraft’s kinematics, and exponentially more expensive. If this shot misses, its even more useless after the merge, due to a dozen obvious reasons.

Surely, you can’t be serious? Locking some fighter at 12 km HEAD ON with these missiles’ IR seeker is very doubtful, let alone the hit chances if the target changes its direction since the missile’s fuel will be long gone by then. And at 30 km, it sounds outright impossible and would make sense for some LOAL IR missile only.

12km no-escape zone for R-73? And 13 km effective rear-hemisphere range? R-60MK 15 km range? Yeah, right, maybe on Mars. These are very high altitude, fast approaching non-maneuvering target absolute kinetic effective maximums which will not really happen in reality and that’s even without getting into the seeker limitations (at 15 km with the R-60MK maybe you can lock the sun on IF the atmospheric conditions are ideal 😉 ).. For that missile even the 6 km you mention is wishful thinking.

I can’t believe what I’ve just read here..

Or if an Su-27 used IRST to shoot down a bomber with R-27TE from 50 km is this a WVR shot because the lack of radar?

actually, they could’ve had f-22s it wouldn’t change things.

Well, a point could be made that the MiG-29 9.12 was not a well-rounded plane, especially for the export customers. The radar was rather limited so the plane depended on GCI guidance and the Lazur datalink which the export customers didn’t have (some had GCI at least, but if those stations are taken out, the planes are left blind, e.g. like in Syria in 82.). It also had two maintenance-heavy engines for which it didn’t have enough fuel, but which made it costly to operate. And even though it had two engines, it only carried two medium range missiles (and no IR), exactly like the single-engined MiG-23 it was made to replace (2 MRM, 4 SRM). The HMS and Archer combo was pretty good, though, combined with a very good maneuverability, but that was somewhat useless given the lack of fuel.

The MiG-29M would have fixed all that, of course, but it would have also cost much more.

Even today the americans prefer the 20mm gatling gun vs the european preference for 30mm cannons.

Even today? There is one fighter in LRIP currently and it’s not armed with 20mm cannons.