Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

Cyrus the great wrote:

medo wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:
I just read up on the Arbalet radar and it seems to be superior to the Longbow in every way except for the number of targets that it can detect. The Arbalets detects only 20 targets simultaneously.  The Longbow can apparently detect 256 targets. The Arbalet has longer range and better resolution.  

Arbalet tracks 20 targets simultaneously. This is more than enough as Ka-52 doesn't have enough armament to engage this number of targets.

I would agree,  but having a full picture of the battlefield would be preferable. The Russians can increase the detection capability of this radar. There are small AESA radars that can detect 1,000 targets.

medo wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:

medo wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:
I just read up on the Arbalet radar and it seems to be superior to the Longbow in every way except for the number of targets that it can detect. The Arbalets detects only 20 targets simultaneously.  The Longbow can apparently detect 256 targets. The Arbalet has longer range and better resolution.  

Arbalet tracks 20 targets simultaneously. This is more than enough as Ka-52 doesn't have enough armament to engage this number of targets.

I would agree,  but having a full picture of the battlefield would be preferable. The Russians can increase the detection capability of this radar. There are small AESA radars that can detect 1,000 targets.

Detecting and tracking targets are not the same thing. You could detect 100 targets, but simultaneously tracking 20 targets is a different capabilities. How many targets could simultaneously track Longbow radar?

Cyrus the great wrote:

medo wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:

medo wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:
I just read up on the Arbalet radar and it seems to be superior to the Longbow in every way except for the number of targets that it can detect. The Arbalets detects only 20 targets simultaneously.  The Longbow can apparently detect 256 targets. The Arbalet has longer range and better resolution.  

Arbalet tracks 20 targets simultaneously. This is more than enough as Ka-52 doesn't have enough armament to engage this number of targets.

I would agree,  but having a full picture of the battlefield would be preferable. The Russians can increase the detection capability of this radar. There are small AESA radars that can detect 1,000 targets.

Detecting and tracking targets are not the same thing. You could detect 100 targets, but simultaneously tracking 20 targets is a different capabilities. How many targets could simultaneously track Longbow radar?

The Longbow radar can detect,  simultaneously track 256 targets,  prioritize the most dangerous and initiate a concerted attack with other Apaches in as little as one minute. If the Arbalet radar is limited in azimuth and elevation,  then the Longbow is superior for the moment.

Magnumcromagnon

Why and how is a side or rear mounted radar superior to a mast mounted radar?

Cyrus the great wrote:How do Russia's tactical data-links compare with NATO's Link 16 and Link 22? And how do Russian mission computers compare? The AH-64E Guardian has a new mission computer with a 48 core processor -- with future growth to 80 cores. The 48 core mission computer is impressive, consuming just 25 watts. The commercial Tilera 100 core processor consumes 55 watts. I can't wait to see the kind of mission computer that will be incorporated into the Armata and other Russian platforms.

sepheronx wrote:

Cyrus the great wrote:How do Russia's tactical data-links compare with NATO's Link 16 and Link 22? And how do Russian mission computers compare? The AH-64E Guardian has a new mission computer with a 48 core processor -- with future growth to 80 cores. The 48 core mission computer is impressive, consuming just 25 watts. The commercial Tilera 100 core processor consumes 55 watts. I can't wait to see the kind of mission computer that will be incorporated into the Armata and other Russian platforms.

To be honest, that just sounds ridiculous.  Nothing, even supercomputing equient, dont have more than 32 cores in a single server, and eats up way more wattage.  So either someone is lying real hard, or they are using something that is custom built processor and running at like low frequency or something.

Russia could use an Elbrus-2C+ and do just fine.  2 cores to do everything else and 4 dsp cores to do raw data translation from radar and other comm equipment.  And that would be more than enough.

sepheronx wrote:I see now.  OK.  Interesting but for a mission computer alone it sounds wasteful.  Are these actual cores or are they more like celluare cores?

I take it they just use 1 computer for all purposes then for the apache if it uses something like that?

Militarov wrote:

sepheronx wrote:I see now.  OK.  Interesting but for a mission computer alone it sounds wasteful.  Are these actual cores or are they more like celluare cores?

I take it they just use 1 computer for all purposes then for the apache if it uses something like that?

They are actual physical cores, just they are not as powerful as commercial CPU cores, this is extremly high density chip. I am not sure about how many separate chips Apache uses, but i assume there is one central chip based on something similar to this, and couple other less powerful computers for redundancy and backup systems or to control basic systems, i assume it has few PLC like computers too for hydraulics and similar.

Garry B wrote:Arbalet has two antennas for two radar... the main air to ground radar points forward and is for detecting ground targets in MMW radar frequencies.

The mast mounted 360 degree radar is a longer wave radar that is not effected so badly by moisture in the atmosphere and has a much greater detection range.

5km range to detect a stinger missile... keep in mind that a Stinger heading toward the helo would be flying nose forward and would present a target about 7.5cm round at 5km range...

Garry B wrote:Core information being passed from platform to platform is the main difference... with an expensive high performance system you get realtime HD video footage of the target with realtime coordinates, with a simpler cheaper setup you get map coordinates and target data... the main difference is bandwidth... and the question whether you want to see video of the hospitals being taken out in the US system or the terrorists being killed in the Russian system.

GarryB wrote:

Also, roughly speaking, kinematically a Ka-52 compared to an F-15 is like the F-15 compared to a MiG-25.

Except that a MiG-25 is much faster than an F-15 and has a much more powerful radar and air to air missile capability than any Ka-52.

the main problem for the Ka-52 is that even if it could detect aerial targets hundreds of kms away it has no way of dealing with them so most of the time will only scan within 5-10km of itself looking for threats rather than prey.

With President-M it could probably defend itself from any SAM or AAM, but it is at a huge disadvantage against any fixed wing fighter with a radar and proper AAM.

Isos wrote:They should put Pantsir-S1's missiles on Ka-52. They successfully integrated Pak-fa's radar in armata, why not in Ka-52.

Could carry more more of them than R-73, plus it has 20 km range when used from static position. I'm assuming R73 range is lower than when used with aircrafts.