Military Review

In the United States compared attack helicopters Apache and Alligator

99
Experts of the Internet portal Facts Box compared the combat capabilities of the American Apache helicopter and the Russian Ka-52 Alligator. In their opinion, these combat vehicles are the most advanced assault helicopters in the world. American analysts evaluated the helicopters in five ways.


After analyzing the AN-64 and Ka-52, the experts concluded that the Russian "Alligator" is superior to the "Apache" in terms of survival and armament. The specialists noted that the Ka-52 is the world's first combat helicopter that has a bailout rescue system, while steel plates are installed in the cockpit to protect 20-mm projectiles from direct hits. In the American helicopter to protect the pilots used ceramic plates.

In the United States compared attack helicopters Apache and Alligator


The Alligator’s arsenal includes 2A42 X-mmX millimeter cannon rifles, aerial bombs, Sturm-VU and Whirlwind guided anti-tank missiles penetrating any armor along with active defense. It can take on board the air-to-air missiles of the Igla-B melee, as well as unmanaged air-to-surface missiles. Equipped with a radar station "Crossbow".

The built-in armament of the AN-64A Apache helicopters consists of a single-barrel 30-mm M230 gun mounted in a turret in the lower part of the fuselage under the operator-gunner’s seat. To combat tanks the helicopter is armed with a Hellfire ATGM with a semi-active laser homing head. If necessary, instead of an ATGM, on each of the suspension nodes, one launcher can also be placed, each of which contains 19 unguided aviation rockets with a caliber of 70 mm.

The Apache surpasses the Russian helicopter in range by approximately 150 kilometers. But thanks to the coaxial design of the screws, the Alligator can fly forward with a tail at a speed of 130 kilometers per hour, sideways - 100 km / h, and perform aerobatics that are inaccessible to other helicopters, reports "RG-Force"

Photos used:
youtube.com
99 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 9 January 2018 13: 31 New
    +4
    Know our! God forbid they clash with the "Alligators" in the air ... They still learn a lot of things wassat
    1. Aristarkh Lyudvigovich
      Aristarkh Lyudvigovich 9 January 2018 13: 33 New
      +5
      Yes, a dangerous helicopter

    2. The_lancet
      The_lancet 9 January 2018 14: 32 New
      +8
      thanks to the coaxial scheme of Alligator screws, fly forward with the tail at a speed of 130 kilometers per hour, sideways - 100 km / h

      Why is a combat helicopter needed and where can it be used?
      Which helicopter has more modern and reliable electronics?
      1. The comment was deleted.
      2. RUSS
        RUSS 9 January 2018 15: 44 New
        +1
        Quote: The_Lancet
        thanks to the coaxial scheme of Alligator screws, fly forward with the tail at a speed of 130 kilometers per hour, sideways - 100 km / h

        Why is a combat helicopter needed and where can it be used?
        Which helicopter has more modern and reliable electronics?

        What if the tail goes to ram laughing
      3. NEXUS
        NEXUS 9 January 2018 15: 50 New
        +9
        Quote: The_Lancet
        Why is a combat helicopter needed and where can it be used?

        What will happen to Apache if his tail is chopped off? And what will happen to the Apache crew in this case?
        Quote: The_Lancet
        Which helicopter has more modern and reliable electronics?

        For what tasks? Like an ambush helicopter, Apache is not bad, but in the air confrontation with another helicopter, it will not have enough armor or maneuverability. At the same time, mattresses will not be able to eject, in case of contact.
        1. RUSS
          RUSS 9 January 2018 17: 02 New
          +6
          Quote: NEXUS
          Apache is not bad, but in an air confrontation with another helicopter, it will not have enough armor or maneuverability. At the same time, mattresses will not be able to catapult, in case of contact.

          Apache is primarily an anti-tank helicopter.
          1. NEXUS
            NEXUS 9 January 2018 17: 12 New
            +8
            Quote: RUSS
            Apache is primarily an anti-tank helicopter.

            And alligator damn well, not at all sharpened for it ... right?
        2. igorka357
          igorka357 10 January 2018 07: 34 New
          +3
          Calm down, ours recognize that Apache has better electronics and long-range missiles .. Apache fired and dumped .. and ours need to enter the air defense zone and hang until the rocket reaches the target!
          1. Roma 1977
            Roma 1977 10 January 2018 10: 20 New
            +3
            Not. The KA-52 anti-tank systems are also designed to operate outside the enemy’s air defense zone. That is, tanks can be operated from 8-10 kilometers - this is an unattainable distance for return fire. Moreover, the missiles themselves are supersonic, that is, their flight time is very short, 20-30 seconds at maximum distances. In promising weapons for the Ka-52, the range of target destruction by supersonic guided ammunition will be further increased, up to 20 km.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 10 January 2018 13: 39 New
              +2
              Quote: Roma-1977
              Not. The KA-52 anti-tank systems are also designed to operate outside the enemy’s air defense zone.

              Does Apache work wrong? M.
              1. Roma 1977
                Roma 1977 10 January 2018 13: 49 New
                +2
                So. I mean that both of these helicopters are capable of hitting targets without entering the return fire zone, and not just the Apache.
      4. StobbeS
        StobbeS 9 January 2018 16: 13 New
        +7
        I will not judge electronics (here the arguments will not differ much from the argument "my dad is stronger because he is my dad"), but according to the first point I can assume that the ability to fire in any direction without reducing the speed will not be superfluous.
      5. DMB_95
        DMB_95 9 January 2018 19: 17 New
        +3
        Quote: The_Lancet
        thanks to the coaxial scheme of Alligator screws, fly forward with the tail at a speed of 130 kilometers per hour, sideways - 100 km / h

        Why is a combat helicopter needed and where can it be used?

        Turntables need high maneuverability, for example, in mountainous areas. They work at low altitudes.
        1. You Vlad
          You Vlad 10 January 2018 09: 48 New
          +2
          Quote: DMB_95
          for example in the mountains

          Where the air is more rarefied ...
          1. DMB_95
            DMB_95 10 January 2018 16: 29 New
            +3
            Quote: you Vlad
            Quote: DMB_95
            for example in the mountains

            Where the air is more rarefied ...

            But then they often had to fight in the mountains.
            1. You Vlad
              You Vlad 10 January 2018 17: 13 New
              +2
              Quote: DMB_95
              But then they often had to fight in the mountains.

              So I'm talking about the fact that in thin air, more engine power is required to lift the helicopter, and the coaxial scheme successfully copes with this.
      6. Sevastiec
        Sevastiec 10 January 2018 06: 39 New
        +4
        Quote: The_Lancet
        Why is a combat helicopter needed and where can it be used?


        He, like a well-mannered lady, can back away, not turning his back to the enemy ... and at the same time firing at him.
    3. adma
      adma 9 January 2018 19: 15 New
      +3
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      They will learn a lot more.

      For example, the fact that Apache produced only a little more than 2000, and Alligators - as much as 100 pieces. Yeast American adversary !!!!
      1. Roma 1977
        Roma 1977 10 January 2018 10: 23 New
        +1
        Or maybe Russia does not need more. Or at least it is not an urgent need for wars with countries such as ISIS, Georgia or Ukraine. And for the rest, there is a nuclear triad.
        1. adma
          adma 10 January 2018 13: 46 New
          0
          Why then compare? Something I did not hear that the igil, Georgia or Ukraine had Apaches. And the nuclear triad is not so simple.
          1. Roma 1977
            Roma 1977 10 January 2018 13: 54 New
            +3
            Compare in terms of combat effectiveness. "Do we need to copy this, or is our solution preferable." Georgia or Ukraine have tanks, for which Ka-52, Mi-28 and AH-64 are ground. And the "anti-helicopter" is a heresy.
            1. adma
              adma 10 January 2018 20: 01 New
              0
              Quote: Roma-1977
              A "counter-helicopter"

              I completely agree. And my original post was called exclusively by this pearl of the next jingoistic patriot.
              Quote: Mountain Shooter
              Know our! God forbid they clash with the "Alligators" in the air ... They still learn a lot of things wassat
  2. flicker
    flicker 9 January 2018 13: 34 New
    +3
    In the United States compared attack helicopters Apache and Alligator

    ... USA: It would be better not to compare negative
  3. KVU-NSVD
    KVU-NSVD 9 January 2018 13: 34 New
    11
    All of these comparisons are debatable. one thing is certain - even the most stubborn apologists of American cars from the catapult over the battlefield would not refuse
  4. Sands Careers General
    Sands Careers General 9 January 2018 13: 35 New
    12
    Thanks to the coaxial design of the K-52 screws, it’s more difficult to learn, but my personal opinion is that it is the most epic helicopter in the world, and it has no analogues, the Americans swallow dust far behind in this area.
    1. NEXUS
      NEXUS 9 January 2018 16: 57 New
      +7
      Quote: Sands Career General
      Thanks to the coaxial design of the K-52 screws, it’s more difficult to learn, but my personal opinion is that it is the most epic helicopter in the world, and it has no analogues, the Americans swallow dust far behind in this area.

      It’s a pity they didn’t continue to develop the KA-50 theme with one pilot. In conjunction with the Alligator, and even with avionics, like Katran ... no Cobra or Apache would be standing next to it.
      1. Sands Careers General
        Sands Careers General 9 January 2018 17: 12 New
        +4
        Looks like the Ka-52 is still better and more reliable, since they focused on it.
        1. NEXUS
          NEXUS 9 January 2018 17: 15 New
          11
          Quote: Sands Career General
          Looks like the Ka-52 is still better and more reliable, since they focused on it.

          The point is not better ... The shark was more maneuverable, light and fast, and the Alligator was originally conceived as a command machine. That is, providing primarily command over the sharks. It was the KA-50 that was created as the pit bull, which is sharpened for battle, and it does not matter whether it is with a helicopter or with a tank. But the FAS team should have been given to him by the Alligator.
          1. Sands Careers General
            Sands Careers General 9 January 2018 17: 21 New
            +6
            Not everything turns out as I wanted. Machines are complex and expensive, so they decided to produce in one version.
            1. NEXUS
              NEXUS 9 January 2018 17: 24 New
              +5
              Quote: Sands Career General
              Not everything turns out as I wanted. Machines are complex and expensive, so they decided to produce in one version.

              Not really ... there in this story CB Mil was very fussed, because Kamovtsy got into their territory. Kamovtsi then specialized in helicopters for the Navy.
              1. Sands Careers General
                Sands Careers General 9 January 2018 17: 26 New
                +6
                Yeah, I read about this story. Brutal competition.
        2. Rash
          Rash 10 January 2018 10: 11 New
          +2
          I think the reason is that there is no shot-forget missile. Therefore, a shooter is needed.
      2. You Vlad
        You Vlad 10 January 2018 09: 51 New
        +2
        I read this opinion from experts that the Ka-50 took a big step forward, we weren’t ready yet for that .. It was connected with electronics. Maybe the time will come for the Ka-50, but it will be called differently.
  5. aszzz888
    aszzz888 9 January 2018 13: 38 New
    +1
    ... Hollywood, he is Hollywood ... here for the bamboo fanzas - yes, they can, here they are superior to the shacks ... bully
    1. igorka357
      igorka357 10 January 2018 07: 37 New
      0
      And our alligator fought in a difficult environment, using the enemy’s entire air defense spectrum ...))))?
      1. Roma 1977
        Roma 1977 10 January 2018 10: 26 New
        +1
        The spectrum of air defense against helicopters is a small arms, ZSU and MANPADS. That is what they regularly encounter in Syria.
        1. igorka357
          igorka357 11 January 2018 07: 24 New
          0
          Seriously, what nonsense did you write?
          1. Roma 1977
            Roma 1977 11 January 2018 10: 15 New
            +1
            It is clear that helicopters are best destroyed by ballistic missiles with multiple warheads. I do not argue.
  6. Azazelo
    Azazelo 9 January 2018 13: 38 New
    +3
    And also forgot to tell about Khibiny.
  7. assa67
    assa67 9 January 2018 13: 47 New
    15
    yesterday I was reading about this article yesterday ... at the very end, one of the experts spoke out like this: ..... Russians make equipment for the battle, and Americans for the show .... but still, whatever one may say, the Apache is a worthy opponent. ..and again, the numbers are not in our favor
  8. rocket757
    rocket757 9 January 2018 13: 49 New
    +5
    Like again!
    The Yankees still have all the best. The flying "iron" they have is also the best ... diapers and toilet paper, too !!! Looks like Mishiko was happy when he got a whole live. And then his "heroes" could not come to their senses. when they piled ours !!!
  9. Altona
    Altona 9 January 2018 14: 00 New
    12
    Good equipment both there and here, with its charms, with its jambs. A new article for fans who like to be measured by a steel phallus. However, military experience shows that motivated soldiers, for example, Husites, armed with Chinese counterparts AKM and tanks like T-55, quite successfully drive a technologically advanced Saudi army armed with the most modern military gadgets. With regards to helicopters, the crew rescue system in the form of firing off blades and ejection is priceless.
    1. marlin1203
      marlin1203 9 January 2018 14: 28 New
      +2
      Ka 52, like Mi28n, is a “flying tank”, and Apache is a “moped”.
  10. ROM1077
    ROM1077 9 January 2018 14: 01 New
    +9
    Yeah, only in the news they modestly kept silent that the Apache shoots rockets further than 16 km against 6 km on our Ka52 and missiles fly, I forgot to shoot and our pilot needs to keep the target. and our cannon from the BMP 30m shifts the helicopter by 1 degree with each shot. amers have no such hemorrhoids and the gun is 2 times lighter ...
    1. marlin1203
      marlin1203 9 January 2018 14: 27 New
      +1
      It’s not from BMPs, like ... they put it on BTR 82a.
    2. Topotun
      Topotun 9 January 2018 15: 39 New
      +4
      A gun with lateral placement (near the CT) has greater stability than a gun in a turret under the nose of a helicopter. Therefore, the dispersion of the spacecraft during shooting is less. But pointing to large azimuthal angles must be carried out by helicopter overturn. So, there are pros and cons. And rockets are not all clear. Attack flight speed of about 600 m / s, i.e. when firing at 6 km, the rocket flies for 10 seconds (the helicopter is at risk of destruction), the helfire flies at a speed slightly above the speed of sound (1.1M if the media do not lie), which is about 20 seconds at the same distance. And this is the time for using air defense means / (for cancer). In addition, homing in battlefield conditions can be very difficult. In general, it makes no sense to compare who is better, it will only show the battle. Each car has pros and cons.
    3. cobalt
      cobalt 9 January 2018 21: 56 New
      +1
      Plus, the Apache’s gun shelling sector is wider, and on ka 52 you have to maneuver the helicopter body
    4. Roma 1977
      Roma 1977 10 January 2018 10: 28 New
      +1
      Lighter, not better, in this case.
  11. Altona
    Altona 9 January 2018 14: 02 New
    +1
    Quote: rocket757
    The Yankees still have all the best. The flying "iron" they have is also the best ...

    -----------------------------
    The Yankees at least do not rely on new weapons systems in contrast to the "energy power".
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 9 January 2018 15: 22 New
      +4
      Separate the flies from the cutlets!
      I don’t vote for our goons, if you were boiling the right one, I would support it without hesitation!
      For the iron, so the flyers call him that, give them free will, freedom of maneuver ... and Schaub for them, that steered, corrected, restrained them, they still did not understand what was the comfort / feature of this aircraft.
  12. Alexey-74
    Alexey-74 9 January 2018 14: 29 New
    +1
    I wonder why the Yankees are constantly comparing the Apache with our Ka-52 .... let them compare it with the Mi-28N (Night Hunter) ..... although how many do not compare, the skill and courage of the crew is the main thing, and in terms of technical properties these cars are similar ...
    1. Grits
      Grits 9 January 2018 15: 07 New
      +2
      I agree that you need to compare Apache with Mi-28. They have the same scheme. True, I am not sure that in this case the comparison will be in favor of our helicopter.
      But with the Ka-52 amers there is nothing to compare ...
  13. _Jack_
    _Jack_ 9 January 2018 14: 33 New
    +2
    The Ka-52 is an excellent helicopter, but the absence of homing missiles with an active seeker negates all its advantages.
    1. shuravi
      shuravi 10 January 2018 01: 32 New
      +3
      Quote: _Jack_
      The Ka-52 is an excellent helicopter, but the absence of homing missiles with an active seeker negates all its advantages.

      So now there are none at all. What the Americans did, except for the landfill.
    2. Roma 1977
      Roma 1977 10 January 2018 10: 38 New
      +1
      It doesn’t. 3rd generation ATGMs are not an absolute weapon. Value for money raises many questions. Usually in Russia, the adoption of a new model for service follows when the new model shows a total of 1.5-fold efficiency compared to the old model. In this case, such qualitative growth is not detected by specialists, and therefore the mass replacement of anti-tank systems with anti-tank systems with an active homing head does not make sense. Development is underway, but as a means "for special occasions."
      1. _Jack_
        _Jack_ 10 January 2018 19: 39 New
        0
        Our helicopter is forced to be in direct line of sight during the entire flight of the rocket, as highlights the target with a laser. All this time, the helicopter is very at risk of falling into return fire, as holds the target, look at the video from Syria. In the case of military air defense, this is certain death for a helicopter, because when a rocket is launched, it is unmasked. Apache makes a jump because of the terrain, launches several missiles at once for several targets and, without waiting for the result, dives for the folds of the terrain, presses itself to the ground and leaves the return fire. As a result, the targets are hit and the helicopter is intact. So much for "it makes no sense." They still cannot make a rocket, and therefore it "does not make sense", as soon as they bring the project to mind, it will immediately become clear how many, it turns out, ATGMs of the 3rd generation have advantages.
  14. cannabis
    cannabis 9 January 2018 14: 57 New
    +4
    Apache was created as a fighter of Russian tanks. Two helicopters could disable a tank battalion, being themselves outside the limits of air defense fire. Light, maneuverable, capable of "hare" taking off for a few seconds, make launches and hide in the folds of the terrain.
    1. faiver
      faiver 9 January 2018 16: 52 New
      +1
      30-40 tanks by two helicopters? Oh well
      1. cannabis
        cannabis 9 January 2018 16: 55 New
        0
        Well, well, Apaches need to say that. Each of them has 16 anti-tank missile systems of the 3rd generation "fired - forgot."
        1. faiver
          faiver 9 January 2018 17: 01 New
          +1
          can carry up to xnumx missiles, but usually mixed weapons
          1. igorka357
            igorka357 10 January 2018 07: 43 New
            0
            Usually from the battalion only 50% of the vehicles on the go ..))
        2. Now we are free
          Now we are free 9 January 2018 18: 26 New
          +1
          Quote: cunning
          Apache was created as a fighter of Russian tanks. Two helicopters could disable a tank battalion, being themselves outside the limits of air defense fire. Light, maneuverable, capable of "hare" taking off for a few seconds, make launches and hide in the folds of the terrain.

          Greetings from the “Thor” specially created for such “Hares” with their jumps and yes, if you mean “DogEndPoniShow”, that the “Indians” showed on the camera in Iraq shooting defenseless Iraqi tanks stretched into a column ... Believe me, with a minimum operating an enemy air defense, such tricks will not work ...
          1. igorka357
            igorka357 10 January 2018 07: 50 New
            +1
            There was excellent Soviet-made air defense in Iraq, no need to carry nonsense! You are like little in-kind .. laughing With a functioning air defense system, neither the Apache nor the F-35 nor the F-22 will work, the Tomogavks will work, but after the Tomogavks the F-22 and F-35 will work, but after them the Apaches will clear everything .. and this is very and here’s a comparison of two helicopters, by no means according to what criteria, well, put them at a distance of 10 km from the tank, ours has no chance, and Apache will easily destroy the tank, put them on against each other Apache has no chance, ours he will be knocked down, ours can carry anti-ship missiles, but Apache can’t .. so do we compare combat capabilities, survival on the battlefield, or the range of weapons?
      2. Roma 1977
        Roma 1977 10 January 2018 10: 30 New
        0
        Well, not 30-40, but 10-20 is real.
    2. shuravi
      shuravi 10 January 2018 01: 33 New
      +3
      How I am touched by such comments. laughing
  15. tchoni
    tchoni 9 January 2018 15: 23 New
    +1
    As far as I understand, helfaire has slightly better range characteristics, which, in combination with the over-the-beam surveillance radar (for longbow), gives some advantages to Apache. On the other hand, the modification of the kat52 katran has a fighter (in fact) radar with afar and the ability to use anti-ship missiles and, purely theoretically, has the flexibility of upgrading to use a wider range of air-to-air weapons
  16. The comment was deleted.
  17. raptor1975
    raptor1975 9 January 2018 15: 34 New
    +4
    Well, this is not the first time I am repeating to the fans of our helicopters - compare armaments, read, because it can be seen that the armament of APACH LONGBOU is superior to the armament of our attack helicopters: APACH LONGBOU: 30mm cannon ammunition of 1200 shells, HAYLFAYR ATGMs with an infrared homing head -
    KA52: 30mm cannon ammunition for 460 rounds, whirlwind ATGMs or STURMs with laser guidance - that is, you need to illuminate the target before a missile hits, the helicopter risks being shot down.
    Plus, the APACH LONGBOW system allows you to identify up to 256 targets in a matter of seconds and release HEILFAIR ATGMs in a few seconds and will be deleted even before the missiles hit the target. The thermal imager and night optics give the image a lot more clearly on the APACH display compared to the KA52. The cost of APACH LONGBOW along with weapons is an order of magnitude higher than the cost of the KA52 and this did not prevent him from winning a tender for the delivery of attack helicopters to the Indians. In my opinion, there are only 52 KA3 advantages: an armored cockpit, ATGMs and a low price helicopter !!!
    1. Lone gunman
      Lone gunman 9 January 2018 18: 25 New
      +1
      "AH-64D Apache Block III" for any best helicopter for this period of time, and this says that the Slavs have much to strive for. I would not compare the Apache with the Ka-52, but would compare it with the Mi-28, but apparently it never even occurred to the Amer because of the “power” of the Apache. As for the Ka-52, it’s really a helicopter, and also a combat one, but why the Russians need two attack helicopters - this is a question, we need to concentrate on one Mi-28, and the Ka-52 (for the sake of competition between the two great “firms” Mil and Kamov) give to the "mercy" of naval aviation ... so where are the helicopter carriers ?!
    2. igorka357
      igorka357 10 January 2018 07: 52 New
      +3
      Fourth, the bailout system!
  18. viktorch
    viktorch 9 January 2018 16: 45 New
    +2
    as a tank destroyer the apatch is definitely out of competition, and no 28th and 50-52th rds can do anything here,
    and for the exact defeat of other types of ground targets, the patch looks better.
    sees further, shoots further, is less under enemy fire, or does not enter the air defense zone at all.

    the ka52 radar is certainly good, but by and large it is an additional risk and unmasking before enemy aircraft, and in general the ka52 is primarily a naval vehicle, which instead of being further universalized to perform tasks of sea-based strike underdevelopment, is for some reason dragged like an anti-tank strike machine for land explorers .

    you need to look at the situation realistically, but really - the competitor to the patch - mi28 which is essentially a "patch for the poor" with much cheaper and low-tech bro and more primitive rockets

    but in general this is a comparison of Merc with Prior, but as a prior, do not pump, well, as if everything is clear.
    1. rocket757
      rocket757 9 January 2018 18: 45 New
      +4
      It’s interesting, how will it deal with objects covered by air defense?
      And that and the other spinner, this is the firewood that will be burned in REAL battle first! And the armored vehicles will “steer” on the battlefield, and if they even cover it from above, which of course is provided for, then they will fight with it in the old fashioned way, the receiver and infantry ATGM!
  19. APASUS
    APASUS 9 January 2018 19: 20 New
    +1
    Such a strange comparison. I have three wheels and you have a leather-wrapped steering wheel?
  20. shuravi
    shuravi 10 January 2018 02: 03 New
    +6
    I read the comments, you can’t imagine directly on purpose. laughing
    I just don’t understand what the Internet is doing with people. Hiding behind an anonymous nickname, every hairdresser, taxi driver, gynecologist and others suddenly turn to large strategists and great specialists in particular (in relation to this branch) aviation.
    Well, they issue the appropriate analytics.
    Well, essentially.
    AN-64 is created in American traditions, where the main thing is advertising characteristics that tend to zero in practice.
    It is incorrect to compare the same AN-64 armor with domestic helicopters in general. Just because on the AN-64 it is practically nonexistent. There are pathetic flaps that seem to withstand the declared hits, but they are negligible. The operator does not even have bulletproof glass. For manufacturers the main thing was to provide weight.
    The AN-64 gun, like 30 mm and the ammunition is large, already 1200. But here's the thing: the DP machine gun has an 7,62 caliber and the 7,62 PPSh, while the DP magazine has 47 cartridges, and the PPSh 72. So is PCA better? That's the whole question in the cartridge. The cartridge of the American is much weaker, so not only that, trying to provide a large ammunition supply, we went for linkless food, but as inevitability a cylindrical sleeve. Therefore, an innate feature of the M230 is the jamming of the spent sleeve in the chamber. 300-400 rounds of ammunition are loaded on combat, there is no more sense, it will jam.
    Homing ATGM is generally a song. Unless suitable for the landfill. For they have a hundred tank, which is just a box, no difference.
    Well, about the tactics of shelters. It sounds beautiful, but in practice it happens. that they are always not where they should be. Therefore, in domestic tactics, the main form of launching ATGMs on the move at speed.
    1. raptor1975
      raptor1975 10 January 2018 05: 02 New
      +2
      Shuravi and you are the smartest huh? If you deny something, then give arguments. And I was not on the Internet, but for a long time I was interested in attack helicopters. I repeat once again for the very ones: HELLFIR missiles are a generation higher than ours and they have an infrared homing system (shot-forgot), ours have a laser guidance system, that is, every missile must be escorted to the target - which is not clear here ??? APACH detected the targets, fired all the missiles and knocked them out before the missiles hit the target, and our impoverished helicopter will accompany each missile to the target like a ram until it is hit, which is not clear here? tell me a fucking specialist ...
      1. igorka357
        igorka357 10 January 2018 08: 00 New
        +2
        Shuravi just show off, do not worry .. "view of launching ATGMs on the move at speed", and then sharp braking and rocket tracking to the target ... wink
        1. shuravi
          shuravi 12 January 2018 10: 58 New
          +2
          Quote: igorka357
          Shuravi just show off, do not worry .. "view of launching ATGMs on the move at speed", and then sharp braking and rocket tracking to the target ... wink



          Excuse me, are you? Or are such fantasies? However, you can find on the network the second part of the “Mi-4 instruction” and poke me with information from there that after the ATGM descent it is necessary to produce sharp braking. bully
      2. shuravi
        shuravi 10 January 2018 08: 45 New
        +5
        Quote: raptor1975
        Shuravi and you are the smartest huh? If you deny something, then give arguments. And I didn’t sit on the Internet, but for a long time I was interested in attack helicopters.


        Well, smarter than many of those “interested”, yet I spent more than one hour in the cockpit of a combat helicopter, I can figure out what is really useful and what is advertising chatter.


        I repeat once again for the very ones: HELLFIR rockets are a generation higher than ours and their system has infrared homing (fired, forgot),


        Actually, there is a homing radar. True, at long ranges only for stationary targets, that is, it is not clear where.


        our laser guidance system, that is, each missile must be escorted to the target - what is not clear here? APACH detected the targets, fired all the missiles and knocked them out before the missiles hit the target, and our poor helicopter will accompany each missile to the target like a ram until it is hit, which is not clear here? tell me a fucking specialist ...


        Let off steam, interested, or you’ll burn the chair. Have you really launched one ATGM? Can you really imagine how it happens there on a combat course? How many times do you have to retarget an already issued ATGM and for what size goals to apply?
        And what are you going to destroy the helicopter that works out of the reach of the MZA, does not rise above the terrain, at speed and maneuvers?
        Or do you think that AN-64 hovering behind the so-called shelter at a distance of 10-14 km to the target is more secure?
      3. Mih1974
        Mih1974 10 January 2018 22: 01 New
        +3
        In front of Korea, the mericases took off show-offs - the result was crap, they reconciled only when the American generals were torn off the roof and they started talking about nuclear weapons negative , hanging out in front of Vietnam - Crap, so epic that it’s even indecent to remind that, unlike Korea, Vietnam almost did not participate in Vietnam tongue , in Ipak - the tiny coastal town was stormed for almost a month, they were ditched (by the pikhot, dada pikhot) simply epic, “won” only by razing “a la Stalingrad”. Let’s compare Syria and Iraq, Aleppo and Mosul: with a massive ban on massive bombing and shelling, ours (by the hands of the Syrians) took the assault in a few days, the remnants of the Barmalei tearfully begged them to let go to Idlib, Mossul - the American Americans COMPARED WITH THE EARTH, with complete silence “honest rights MEDIA" negative .
        The conclusion is very simple - the Merikas "know how to fight" only with an order of magnitude superiority in the technical level of weapons and complete impunity. tongue shniki and ki. Like wars, I personally despise them. negative
    2. Viktor.12.71
      Viktor.12.71 10 January 2018 06: 35 New
      0
      Quote: shuravi
      Well, essentially.

      Apache was created for one purpose, namely to combat the enemy’s armored vehicles, while ours made universal machines. If you compare with the old Apache of 80 years, then yes, that the Mi-28N, that the Ka-52 surpass it. But, now the Americans AH-64E Apache "Guardian" deep modification of 2012 and they make up the main fleet of combat helicopters, and sell to others AH-64D Apache Longbow since it is outdated for them. The fact that the American has better electronics, do not go to a fortuneteller, it makes no sense to argue.
      Quote: shuravi
      It is incorrect to compare the same AN-64 armor with domestic helicopters in general. Just because on the AN-64 it is practically absent.

      The Apache’s armor is the same as the Mi-28N’s ... As a result, the Apache’s cockpit protects pilots only from 12,7 millimeter bullets. In case of more serious damage between the cabs there is an armored partition that protects against fragments of shells of caliber up to 23 mm. The overload damping system is generally similar to the complex of measures taken on a Russian helicopter.
      PS. You forgot the main thing. The Americans have a different concept for using helicopters, Apache is a lightweight anti-tank helicopter for night attacks. And we have attack aircraft. It makes no sense to compare.
      1. shuravi
        shuravi 10 January 2018 08: 53 New
        +4
        Quote: Viktor.12.71

        Apache was created for one purpose, namely to combat the enemy’s armored vehicles, while ours made universal machines.


        Really? And what, the gun has already been removed, NAR, too? bully

        If you compare with the old Apache 80 of the year, then yes, that Mi-28H, that Ka-52 surpass it. But now, Americans AH-64E Apache “Guardian” have a deep modification of 2012 of the year and they make up the main fleet of combat helicopters, and they sell AH-64D Apache Longbow to others since it is outdated for them. The fact that the American has better electronics, do not go to a fortuneteller, it makes no sense to argue.


        If desired, you can shove the piano into the helicopter, the question is why. You need to understand what the combat helicopter is intended for.


        The Apache’s armor is the same as the Mi-28’s ... As a result, the Apache’s cockpit protects pilots only from 12,7 millimeter bullets. In case of more serious damage, between the cabs there is an armored partition that protects from fragments of shells of caliber up to 23 mm.


        Are you serious? laughing

        The overload damping system is generally similar to the complex of measures taken on a Russian helicopter.


        Absolutely stupid system. It is a pity that our foolishness used the same.

        PS. You forgot the main thing. The Americans have a different concept for using helicopters, Apache is a lightweight anti-tank helicopter for night attacks. And we have attack aircraft. It makes no sense to compare.


        You made a discovery for me. Over the years of study and service, I was sure that helicopters had fire support. And he’s like, on attack aircraft. laughing
        1. Viktor.12.71
          Viktor.12.71 10 January 2018 09: 57 New
          0
          Quote: shuravi
          Really? And what, the gun has already been removed, NAR, too? bully

          The main application of Apache is the destruction of armored vehicles, sharpened by the concept of Hit and Run.
          Quote: shuravi
          If desired, you can shove the piano into the helicopter, the question is why. You need to understand what the combat helicopter is intended for.

          Here the expensive TADS / PNVS, IHADSS, the same Hit and Run, were pushed into it.
          Quote: shuravi
          Are you serious? laughing

          Correct if I am mistaken.
          Quote: shuravi
          You made a discovery for me. Over the years of study and service, I was sure that helicopters had fire support. And he’s like, on attack aircraft. laughing

          Helicopters saw only in the sky, not for me to teach you. Apache is not multi-purpose, and it’s old to compare it with the new Ka-52.
          1. shuravi
            shuravi 10 January 2018 23: 08 New
            +4
            Quote: Viktor.12.71

            The main application of Apache is the destruction of armored vehicles, sharpened by the concept of Hit and Run.


            The Germans professed something similar during the great Patriotic war, the result is known.
            Combat helicopters must primarily act in the interests of the ground forces.

            Here the expensive TADS / PNVS, IHADSS, the same Hit and Run, were pushed into it.


            Well? what's the point, if in the end, 70 mm NAR and 30 mm nedopushenka.


            Correct if I am mistaken.


            That is:



            Something has changed?

            Apache is not multi-purpose, and it’s old to compare it with the new Ka-52.


            That is, the AN-64 with the ATGM complex of weapons, the gun, the NAR and so on, is not multi-purpose, but the Ka-52 with the same multi-purpose?
            1. Dalailama
              Dalailama 11 January 2018 03: 35 New
              0
              The result, for example, is known in the second Gulf War.
              Do you consider the cobra with its minimal frontal projection a sub-helicopter?
              under another article on the Germans questions again hung
              1. shuravi
                shuravi 11 January 2018 08: 19 New
                +2
                Quote: DalaiLama
                The result, for example, is known in the second Gulf War.


                And who said that there was a war? There was a beating of a much weaker opponent.

                Do you consider the cobra with its minimal frontal projection a sub-helicopter?


                Is she capable of much? What is the ammo in the know?

                under another article on the Germans questions again hung


                Sorry, but I can’t spend a day on the Internet.
                1. Dalailama
                  Dalailama 11 January 2018 08: 39 New
                  0
                  There the enemy was an army with tanks.
                  It was considered by the Vietnamese a dangerous helicopter.
                  Yes, nothing, I'll wait until the next if that.
            2. Viktor.12.71
              Viktor.12.71 11 January 2018 10: 43 New
              0
              Quote: shuravi
              That is, the AN-64 with the ATGM complex of weapons, the gun, the NAR and so on, is not multi-purpose, but the Ka-52 with the same multi-purpose?

              Apache was not created as a multi-purpose, unlike Ka-52.
              Quote: shuravi
              Well? what's the point, if in the end, 70 mm NAR and 30 mm nedopushenka.

              TADS / PNVS, IHADSS systems designed for ATGMs.
              Quote: shuravi
              The Germans professed something similar during the great Patriotic war, the result is known.

              This tactic was called Falcon Strike, A.P. Anosov praised this tactic.
              1. shuravi
                shuravi 11 January 2018 19: 56 New
                +3
                Quote: Viktor.12.71

                Apache was not created as a multi-purpose, unlike Ka-52.


                I would advise you, before getting into disputes, to clarify for yourself personally the terms: multi-purpose, anti-tank, combat helicopters.


                TADS / PNVS, IHADSS systems designed for ATGMs.


                Do you personally have experience with ATGMs to understand what is necessary, what can come in handy, and what is the fifth wheel?


                This tactic was called Falcon Strike, A.P. Anosov praised this tactic.


                To tactics AA (DIA), he is no sideways.
                1. Viktor.12.71
                  Viktor.12.71 11 January 2018 22: 08 New
                  0
                  Quote: shuravi
                  Do you personally have experience with ATGMs to understand what is necessary, what can come in handy, and what is the fifth wheel?

                  Do you personally know the TADS / PNVS, IHADSS systems to judge their futility? Or did training flights in the Apache cockpit at night? I am sure that you are not even close to the 3rd generation ATGMs, since they are massively used by Americans and other Western countries, and they are late in our country. I am not familiar with ATGMs of 3 generations, in our time they were not. In Karabakh, the Israeli 3rd generation ATGMs Spike proved to be excellent, Hellfire belongs to the 3rd generation, so ATGMs of the 3rd generation are very effective.
                  Quote: shuravi
                  I would advise you, before getting into disputes, to clarify for yourself personally the terms: multi-purpose, anti-tank, combat helicopters.

                  I just know that Apache was designed as a light anti-tank pepelats, when as the Ka-52 in terms of fire power corresponds to the capabilities of a front-line attack aircraft, its modification Katran is anti-ship and therefore it is multi-purpose.
    3. igorka357
      igorka357 10 January 2018 07: 58 New
      +1
      ATGM on the move at speed, but what about tracking the target? Something on footage from Syria I distinctly heard the voice of the pilot “hold hold hold” ... and obviously they were holding not a glass, but a marker on the target ... what speed is it about you? You have made a lot of smart letters, you have omitted everyone here, but you yourself haven’t written anything worthless, and, moreover, you have even given out stupidity!
      1. shuravi
        shuravi 10 January 2018 08: 55 New
        +4
        Quote: igorka357
        ATGM on the move at speed, but what about tracking the target? Something on footage from Syria I distinctly heard the voice of the pilot “hold hold hold” ... and obviously they were holding not a glass, but a marker on the target ... what speed is it about you? You have made a lot of smart letters, you have omitted everyone here, but you yourself haven’t written anything worthless, and, moreover, you have even given out stupidity!


        What is the speed? Well, on average 200-220 km / h (comfortable) and lapels up to 60 degrees, it's on the Mi-24.
    4. You Vlad
      You Vlad 10 January 2018 10: 04 New
      +2
      Quote: shuravi
      Well, about the tactics of shelters. It sounds beautiful, but in practice it happens. that they are always not there where necessary.

      Vital good
  21. Cxnumx
    Cxnumx 10 January 2018 07: 25 New
    +1
    missiles "let go and forget" the Alligator did not, as I understand it. this is its main drawback.
    1. Roma 1977
      Roma 1977 10 January 2018 10: 57 New
      +2
      It's hard to call this a flaw. Unless from a marketing point of view. The fire support helicopter will solve most of the fire tasks in light armored and unarmored vehicles, light engineering structures and directly on the enemy infantry. And, mainly, unguided weapons. For more valuable and dangerous goals, the existing ATGMs, called professional second-generation marketers, are enough for the eyes. And for even more valuable and dangerous purposes, helicopters are no longer used.
      1. Cxnumx
        Cxnumx 10 January 2018 11: 45 New
        0
        Quote: Roma-1977
        It's hard to call this a flaw. Unless from a marketing point of view.

        let's honestly, what do you choose: fired a missile at a target and immediately left or fired a missile and leading it to the very end? this is not just marketing - it is a very significant difference in weapons, especially if the target is far removed and moving. that's exactly what is missing ...
        1. Roma 1977
          Roma 1977 10 January 2018 13: 39 New
          +2
          It is more reliable to accompany the target until the moment of defeat. IMHO, the idea of ​​Russian specialists about firing guided supersonic ammunition at a distance of up to 20 kilometers with laser illumination of a target in the final section of the trajectory is preferable for mass use in army aviation. But, of course, an active homing head would also not hurt to be in the regular arsenal of aircraft ATGM, albeit even piece by piece. It is simply too expensive to use it for routine work on such purposes for which army aviation actually works now. The main problem is to detect a target like a “tank” at a distance of up to 20 kilometers in Russia has now been virtually resolved, this is already dramatically increasing the capabilities of anti-tank warfare, without being subject to fire response even when using old ATGMs with a range of 4-6 km, and the use of missiles type "shot and forgotten" will not give a radical increase in efficiency, but only by a few percent.
          1. Cxnumx
            Cxnumx 10 January 2018 13: 46 New
            +1
            Of course, it is not profitable to use such a system for two barmels in a trench, and even a few kilometers from them, but if necessary, hitting a target under enemy fire is extremely useful. albeit piece, but such weapons are necessary.
            1. Mih1974
              Mih1974 10 January 2018 22: 10 New
              +3
              Let's seriously - where did you see that both American helicopters and ours were attacked by air defense? That's right - practically nowhere. After screwing the Hephaestus to the stormtroopers, consider the task of drinking any geeks solved. The "jumped-shot-hid" tactic has been deprecated a long time ago. Firstly, no one has long walked along huge enemy columns in enemy territory, and secondly, since the Chechen wars, read all the columns accompanied by a couple of attack helicopters (perhaps by rumors - a couple of attack aircraft are ready to take off), this is anti-Barmalean tactics, in the danger zone of enemy aviation - in general, columns form, well, or if necessary, they are filled with air defense escorts (tori, shells). Well, the last thing that Apaches need to "organize an ambush" is to know Where-When-How much in advance, and this is already a story from the "other opera". repeat
        2. shuravi
          shuravi 12 January 2018 10: 46 New
          +2
          Quote: K0

          let's honestly, what do you choose: fired a missile at a target and immediately left or fired a missile and leading it to the very end? this is not just marketing - it is a very significant difference in weapons, especially if the target is far removed and moving. that's exactly what is missing ...


          Personally, it was possible to retarget the already issued ATGM several times. Deficiency, or what? In a combat situation it changes extremely dynamically.
          1. Cxnumx
            Cxnumx 12 January 2018 11: 36 New
            0
            Quote: shuravi
            Personally, it was possible to retarget the already issued ATGM several times. Deficiency, or what? In a combat situation it changes extremely dynamically.

            2 questions:
            would you give up such missiles in favor of ATGM?
            and with the option of having both systems?
  22. looker-on
    looker-on 11 January 2018 14: 49 New
    +2
    Quote: Lone gunman
    ... so where are the helicopter carriers ?!


    Well, where?) Then 90% of the forum shouted that Mistral was useless to us. And then, Crimea, Syria .... and oh, how they would be useful. It’s a pity that we didn’t have time to get these beautiful ships ... eh (((
    1. shuravi
      shuravi 12 January 2018 10: 59 New
      +1
      Quote: looker-on


      Well, where?) Then 90% of the forum shouted that Mistral was useless to us. And then, Crimea, Syria .... and oh, how they would be useful. It’s a pity that we didn’t have time to get these beautiful ships ... eh (((


      And why the hell are they needed there? Do not enlighten?