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.

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?

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:

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?

Because you won't have to put unnecessary strain on the coaxial rotors.

Plus vibration is a real hamper too.

From the mouth of the designer......



http://old.redstar.ru/2008/03/05_03/4_02.html

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.

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:

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.

You are lookin at it wrong way. Those are not commercial CPU-s as you know it, those are multiple cores on same chip connected by mesh technology. They are basically high-performance multi-core network processors that are not very useful in every day computers, however Google is using them for indexing for an example, they are used in Internet security servers, for distance video monitoring, in systems that monitor railroads... stuff like that that require many threads but not insane amounts of computing power per thread.



EZchip's TILE-Gx72 would be i assume most famous chip of that kind, 72 cores each 1,2Ghz and its rated on 65W

Here you have more about it if you are interested: http://www.tilera.com/files/drim__TILE-Gx8072_PB041-04_WEB_7666.pdf

These are great coz you can assign number of cores to deal with different tasks. Some work with HUD, life support, engine diagnostics, weapon diagnostics, flight parameters, various sensors.. some systems even have multiple "system on chip" like this if amount of data that needs to be processed is big.

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?

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.

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.

It took a while for this to dawn on me.  I know these type of chips.

I imagine Russias method is separate computers to do different tasks.  That is my ideal setup but more complicated.

Kamov Ka-50/52 uses 4 computing modules with lined up redundancy for main computing module that coordinates the the seperated modules, failsafer that way.

If the Arbalet radar is limited in azimuth and elevation, then the Longbow is superior for the moment.

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...

Most sources cite the range of the Longbow at only 8 km. I've only come across two sources that cite the range of the Longbow at 50 km.

Depends on the target... likely 8km for a tank, and 50km for a large ship or bridge.

Makes sense. As long as it has full 360 degree view, it's all good.

Only for Air to air use.

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.

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.

Very informative posts, Militarov.

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...

Interesting. So the Arbalet radar has 4x the range of the Longbow in its air-to-air mode and has a maximum range of 12 km for ground targets. I wonder if the Longbow can detect incoming MANPAD missiles, dangerous electric cables and meteorological conditions, just like the Arbalet.

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.

I would much rather have advanced data-links that allow me to access and utilize real time information. It does seem that the Russians are only trailing the West in drone technology, mission computers and tactical data-links, but are ahead in virtually everything else. Russian drone technology is coming along and I suspect that they will also invest heavily in tactical data-links and mission computers.

At first they plan to install two radars in Ka-52, one in the nose and one on the top of the mast. That on the mast was meant for detecting air treats, covering 360° and have range around 5 km. Later Ka-52 got UV MAWS sensors, it have 4 LWR sensors and RWR sensors, which cover better against air treats than mast mounted radar, so they didn't waste money on not needed equipment. What is more important is, that radar in the nose is bigger and more powerful than radar placed on the mast. Big Arbalet radar with big EO ball with a lot of different devices inside made Ka-52 an excellent scout helicopter and something like fighter bomber between helicopters. What is Apache is Mi-28N with mast mounted radar as real attack helicopter to do a close air support.

The image of Yakovlev VVP-6 below answers quite a few of the questions related to the present discussion.

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


Yakovlev VVP-6:

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.

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.

Ka-52 ... F-15 ... MiG-25

Tests of Ka-52 Alligator helicopter begin in Russian Far East

More:
http://tass.ru/en/defense/861118

Breaking: Proof that Russians copied KA52 also!

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.

Well they just integrated same technology as used on PAK-FA, actual radars probably just share modules, installing radar with 1500 modules on tank would be financial suicide. There is possibility for Ka-52K to carry downscaled variant of Zhuk-A.

Ka-52 wont fight aganist multirole fighters any time soon, it will do just fine with Igla/Verba.

In a sense they will be carrying Pantsir-S... the Hermes air to ground missile will be Pantsir based.

Nice

Borisov: more than 140 helicopters Ka-52 will go to the troops until 2020

Any more informations regarding Ka-52 in Syria? Not much to be heard about them.