GarryB wrote:Because the missile is probably worth more than many helos...
ATGMs have been used successfully against helos for some time now... especially hovering helos which are particularly vulnerable targets.
Javelin ATGM costs more than an Mi-28? I don't think so.
But you're right about Helis being vulnerable to ATGMS - which begs the question as to why the Mi-28 should be fitted with such a high level of armour - what use is it against weapon systems designed to demolish M1s and T-90 tanks?
Because the vast majority of weapons fired at helos to this day have been MANPADs and AA gun, and the Mi-28s armor is a direct result of the vast combat experience the Mi-24 had all over the world.
BTW- you know how ATGMs work right? a HEAT stream would be pretty damn poor against helicopters. If it detonates anywhere but right next to a critical area, the stream will either dissipate, completely miss the target (the stream is TINY compared to a SAM warhead ) or just go right through a nonessential area without damaging much around it.
Javelin ATGM costs more than an Mi-28? I don't think so.
There are less than 100 Mi-28s in service around the entire world right at this moment... there are likely 10,000 Mi-8s... many of them in not so good condition and not worth that much.
Probably a similar but slightly smaller number of UH-1s around the place too...
But you're right about Helis being vulnerable to ATGMS - which begs the question as to why the Mi-28 should be fitted with such a high level of armour - what use is it against weapon systems designed to demolish M1s and T-90 tanks?
Against an unarmoured helo a HEAT warhead will crush the side of the aircraft in and do a bit more damage. Against an armoured shell a HEAT warhead punches a small hole... a few cm across clean through. If that thin beam of plasma and liquid metal does not hit people, fuel, or ammo then that is all it does... punch a neat little hole in the side of the aircraft and out the other side.
Of course Russian ATGMs often come with HE Frag armed missile options which makes them rather more effective in the light anti aircraft role and the Kornet-EM takes that a step further with the laser beam riding missile effective to 10km range... unlike the Javelin which has a fire and forget range of 2km.
About how much percent of the AA fire the Mi-28 is likely to encounter in conventional combat can its armor defend against? (I have the feeling 20mm HE and 12,7mm shells comprise too small of a percentage, the main part being SAMs, 30+mm rounds and 20mm AP)
As a rule heavy calibre rounds come from heavy calibre guns which are larger and more expensive and less widely distributed on a modern battlefield. In Libya for example for every ZSU-23-4 there will be hundreds if not thousands of 50 cal and 57 cal HMGs on the back of utes (ie the US calls them pickup trucks).
the vast majority of threats to an attack helo is small arms fire, and RPGs because they are the most widely deployed weapons on the battlefield.
The best solution we have are DIRCM's, low risk, much lower costs and very high effeciency.
And there we have it... most new Russian helos will be fitted with the President-S DIRCMs system which as a by product of defeating IR guided MANPADS will also be able to defeat Javelins IR seeker.
More importantly as you just fired a Javelin and got the Mi-28Ms attention from less than 2km range you are now likely to see how effective the 30mm cannon is.
I wonder if a machinegun coax for the 30mm is a bad idea. On one hand using it means you are within range of enemy small arms equivalent too, tho most of the time you spot them when they start shooting at you anyway so a machinegun would be neat.
collegeboy16 wrote:I wonder if a machinegun coax for the 30mm is a bad idea. On one hand using it means you are within range of enemy small arms equivalent too, tho most of the time you spot them when they start shooting at you anyway so a machinegun would be neat.
What kind of Machinegun co-axial to the 2A42 you would like to see? A PK MG?
The problem with exact this concept you try to make is, that for air to ground role a machine gun have very poor reliability and effect on target. You really have to hit your target to have an effect and a 7.62mm round fired from a Machine gun with only 700-800 rpm has very poor hit probability at such ranges, that is why all 7.62mm canons for aircrafts have at least 2000 rpm such as Gsch-7.62mm.
Even with 2000 rpm weapons majority of rounds go into nowhere and you have just additional weight which you have to carry with you just to have the quanity of rounds to hit single targets.
That is why russians usually have 470 30x165mm HEFI rounds with them, 3 rounds are more than enough for one soft target (infantry).
Problems summerized - ineffective due low hit probability - have to carry dead weight - maintenance for the unnecessary extra equipment - higher costs for ammunition/maintenance - inpractical for Kamov helicopters and would make absolutley zero sense - have to make place for mounting the machinegun and extra ammunition
A AGS-17 would make much more sense with a doze times higher hprob and therefore much more effective but would have still remaining negative points such as extra space for mounting and ammo storage even when the maintenance and munition costs would be comprimised by its effectiveness.
collegeboy16 wrote:I wonder if a machinegun coax for the 30mm is a bad idea. On one hand using it means you are within range of enemy small arms equivalent too, tho most of the time you spot them when they start shooting at you anyway so a machinegun would be neat.
What kind of Machinegun co-axial to the 2A42 you would like to see? A PK MG?
The problem with exact this concept you try to make is, that for air to ground role a machine gun have very poor reliability and effect on target. You really have to hit your target to have an effect and a 7.62mm round fired from a Machine gun with only 700-800 rpm has very poor hit probability at such ranges, that is why all 7.62mm canons for aircrafts have at least 2000 rpm such as Gsch-7.62mm.
Even with 2000 rpm weapons majority of rounds go into nowhere and you have just additional weight which you have to carry with you just to have the quanity of rounds to hit single targets.
That is why russians usually have 470 30x165mm HEFI rounds with them, 3 rounds are more than enough for one soft target (infantry).
Problems summerized - ineffective due low hit probability - have to carry dead weight - maintenance for the unnecessary extra equipment - higher costs for ammunition/maintenance - inpractical for Kamov helicopters and would make absolutley zero sense - have to make place for mounting the machinegun and extra ammunition
A AGS-17 would make much more sense with a doze times higher hprob and therefore much more effective but would have still remaining negative points such as extra space for mounting and ammo storage even when the maintenance and munition costs would be comprimised by its effectiveness.
But overall it is unnecessary.
Speaking about poor hit probability, here's some more footage of Apache chain-gun fire:
Why have such an inaccurate weapon in the first place? I agree a grenade launcher makes rather more sense than an inaccurate chain-gun, add a few hundred grenade launcher rounds to Mil-24/35's storage compartment as well as a ammunition feeding system connecting the compartment with the grenade launcher and you have a weapon system designed to engage insurgent/technicals that is significantly more cost-effective than the chain-gun.
magnumcromagnon wrote: Speaking about poor hit probability, here's some more footage of Apache chain-gun fire:
Why have such an inaccurate weapon in the first place? I agree a grenade launcher makes rather more sense than an inaccurate chain-gun, add a few hundred grenade launcher rounds to Mil-24/35's storage compartment as well as a ammunition feeding system connecting the compartment with the grenade launcher and you have a weapon system designed to engage insurgent/technicals that is significantly more cost-effective than the chain-gun.
The Apache with its M230EL Chaingun is a special case compared with other Attack Helicopters and their high powered 20 or 30mm autocannons.
The M230EL was designed as the Aeral Weapon System (AWS), it was intented to be unaccurate along with its ammo storage of 1200 rounds,however over the time the doctrine for the AWS has greatly changed after introducing the upgrade programm for AH-64A in early 80's it was considered that they have to improve the accuracy of the M230 Chaingun, which is a hard task if you initially design a weapon to be inaccurate to fight against "Soviet hords".
After introduction of the first AH-64B/C models it was reported that the accuracy of the M230 was improved by cutting the CEP to the half of what it was (16.0m CEP reduced to 8.0m CEP) while hovering at a target 1km away, the usual measurement to determine helicopter autocanons accuracy. The improvement of the inaccurate M230 was considered along with the use of the M789 HEDP 30x113mm B rounds, this are special rounds they are actually little shaped charged grenades with a special copper liner to compensate the highly negative effect on the penetration capability of the forming linerm which GarryB has us teached.
And to have any practical use of a Shaped charge explosive round, you have actually to hit your target and a 16.0m CEP "accuracy" weapon can hardly hit a tank at any combat relevant ranges without exposiring itself to the 12.7mm gun of the tank or any nearby enemies with actual Anti-Air capability.
In 2008 to 2012 there was another programm to improve the accuracy of the M230EL through a self analysing software installed on all operative D Apaches (so reported), this analyse software, is suppossed to gather information of group while real combat environment and afterwards to be evaluated by engineer personal to adjust the M230 for better grouping. This programm is called AWSS (Apache Weapon Scoring System) However it was intented to be used even on battlefield using Radar Longbow to score the grouping, but never game to this status and is only used by 3rd party sensors to score the grouping on Practice ranges.
________
But like you can see in this videos, how sad it is for the people, it is embarrassing from a military perspective. You can clearly see how ineffective this weapon is.
Watch the video closely he starts with 300 rounds, meaning the "robby tank" which is often refered as "robbing tank" because it cuts the ammo storage from 1200 to only 300 rounds of the link-feeding system from storage room and leaves the ammunition in the feeding system between ammo storage and gun. The actual reason for "robby tank" is because this additional 3rd fuel tank is made by Robbinson Fuel Tanks.
Ok the Video starts with 3 targtes walking on a mountenside and the Apache has 300 rounds and engages his first target at 1000m mark which you can see on the display at the right bottom corner.
The same first person which the Apache engages from first shot to second 00:48 he started shooting with 300 rounds at 1000m away with unknown flight speed but which should not succeed 150 km/h,considering that he can still point the gun at his target even that they fly in a different direction than the gun is facing and the azimuth numbers are not rapidly changing when considering that he is within 500meters of his target range. Through the entire engagement of the very first person he tried to kill he wasted from 300 rounds and ended up beeing 380 meters from his target away after killing it and left with 196 rounds. 300-196 = 104 rounds for one single target at slow speed and within 1000 meter range and rapidly decreasing between Helicopter and target which is considered Apaches high effective range.
From minute 01:09 till 01:36
The Apache started shooting with 1100 meters with 66 rounds with low speed and killed the person at 1:35 left with 26 rounds, only because of DIRECT hit on his torso, while all the wasted rounds literally impacted centimeters away from his body before without clear effect.
I could go on with this video for every single engagement but i would only waste internet traffic for how pathetic the condition, which is intented to a certain degree and which i will explain now. In all videos you see how inaccurate the weapon is succeeding 30m CEP.
To summerize it up M230 was designed to be inaccurate, was afterwards scrapped and try to make it accurate again, because most missions require the 3rd fuel tank which cuts the ammonition from 1200 to 300 rounds, which is considered not enough ammunition when looking at its Rounds per kill ratio. 2 Programms i know off, to greatly increase the accuracy of the M230EL weapon which till this day has least effective results on target.
Now i will come back to the point i made that this weapon was intented to have poor results, sounds pretty harsh accusation, but easily explained.
Intented for the M230EL chaingun are two types of ammunition for combat the M789 HEDP (High Explosive Dual Purpose) round which is nothing else but a shaped charge little grenade with 25mm RHA penetration capability and only 27grams of explosive charge and the M799 HEI (High Exlosive Incendiary) round.
To the M799 HEI round which was intented to be used against Soft targets like infantry and unarmored vehicles trucks and cars. It contains a 40+gram explosive charge with 6gram Incendiary filler and the effective range of round against infantry is given by the manufactor of 4 meters. While the M789 HEDP round has only 27 gram explosives without fragmentation and has a shaped charge has also 4 meters effective range advertized by the manufactor.
And here comes the reason why in Every single footage of engagement of targets in Iraq,Afghanistan,Lybia or anywhere, where Apaches are used are so ineffective is because the MIC has contracts with the US Military for the M789 HEDP, even tho Afghanistan has no armored vehicles. In todays times Explosive rounds are by far to cheap compared with higher technolized ammunition and since the Military Industrial Complex cares more about money (big news) than actual results on battlefield, it made contracts to deliver and use the M789 HEDP and not the soft target intented ammunition M799 HEI rounds which are much cheaper than M789 rounds.
The points about Apache's M230EL Chaingun.
- Intented as Aeral Weapon System (to be inaccurate) - switched doctrine to be actually accurate enough to hit armored targets - initial CEP was 16.0m CEP (by definition of Douglas and Boeing) - was "reduced" to 8.0m CEP also by manufactor claims - each video at 1000m offbore proofs the weapon has CEP between 16m and 30m depends on operator aswell - use of highly ineffective rounds for purposes it was never really designed even tho there are better options
To make some fair points in comperision to other Attack Helicopters. It was reported that the accuracy of lets say Mi-28 in CEP trials were 3-4m CEP at 1km range while hovering within HIGE. The 2A42 is a very accurate weapon, but the inaccuracy starts with a high powered pressure weapon when shooting off-bore with a low gross weight and high speeds. The estimated Accuracy for Mi-28 and the NPPU-28 turret offbore while hovering at 1km distance would already be about 8.0m CEP, it would getting worse when flying and the OADS (Optical Air Data Sensors) have to compensate the inaccuracy and would have about 10-12m CEP, which is still by far more accurate what Apache has shown, but such high numbers are NEVER used as an advertizement, it would only rise questions and doubts by potential customers.
Regarding rifle calibre machineguns on a helo... the lack of effective range makes them pointless except for self defence... ie coming in to land to spray the foliage and make anyone wanting to attack the helo as it lands think again.
the GShG-7.62 has a rate of fire of 6,000rpm... not 2,000rpm.
magnumcromagnon wrote: Speaking about poor hit probability, here's some more footage of Apache chain-gun fire:
Why have such an inaccurate weapon in the first place?
Well that's a big post - have you ever flown a gunship, or designed one to speak with such 'authority'?
What do you really know about the gun accuracy of the Mi-28?
So in your oppinion you have to be olympia gold medal winner to see if sportler is doing well in olympics or not?
Do you need to be a biologist to disproof the nonsensical teachings that the tongue is seperated in flavor tasting zones?
This are simple facts, using wrong ammunition against wrong targets with a weapon that was never designed to be accurate but afterwards tried to fix it into an accurate weapon, that is the best recipe for disaster.
I rely on documents for the most part but when reality seperates from what is advertized than i don't need some self pro claimed expert to tell me what every unteached eye can see and tell.
Werewolf wrote: So in your oppinion you have to be olympia gold medal winner to see if sportler is doing well in olympics or not?
Do you need to be a biologist to disproof the nonsensical teachings that the tongue is seperated in flavor tasting zones?
This are simple facts, using wrong ammunition against wrong targets with a weapon that was never designed to be accurate but afterwards tried to fix it into an accurate weapon, that is the best recipe for disaster.
I rely on documents for the most part but when reality seperates from what is advertized than i don't need some self pro claimed expert to tell me what every unteached eye can see and tell.
The Apache chain gun was never supposed to be accurate, says who - where are these documents?
The question today is not whether the chain gun needed to be fixed or not. There are enough videos online which suggest otherwise and I don't think there are many complaints about the gun's abilities.
Plenty of videos which show just what the Apache's chain gun is capable off, I don't see too many problems with its accuracy, do you? Enjoy:
Last edited by BlackArrow on Sat Mar 22, 2014 12:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
cant see the video- tho i think its the wikileaks helo vid. Also, I think the shaped charge 25mm ammo for the apache is the MIC doing all it can to milk the program. Its got to be a couple hundred bucks a piece while offering little improvement in armor piercing capabilities not to mention because its HEAT lethality is very low unless you hit fuel, ammo or meat.
The Chain Gun" is accurate, but is used primarily as an area weapon for suppressive fire 'to keep heads down'.
Considering the 8.0m CEP accuracy during tests compared with AH-1 M197 Gatling gun it is still accurate, the problem begins with the definition accurate and the actual use of an "Accurate weapon". If it is considered accurate, not saying a sniper rifle, but why is it used as Suppression?
The other point i made which you just ignore is the point that even in Afghanistan where no armored targets are present Apaches still are using M789 HEDP ammunition.
Same Page 19 from same PDF data sheet during tests said.
Conventional M230E1 ammunition is the M789 HE dual-purpose (HEDP) round. Each shell has a 0.76-oz (21.5-g) explosive charge and a shaped charge liner that collapses, upon impact, into an armour-piercing molten metal jet. The projectile body also fragments up to a range of 4 m (13 ft).
The problem is still the same how can it be that this was used as an effective range while it only says "up to a range of 4 m". There is a huge difference between Effective range how it was advertized with "up to range of 4 m". While the M799 HE-I rounds with double the explosive charge have an actual effective range of 4 meters.
The inpractical use of the M230 along with the wrong ammunition which is more expensive just so some people can make more money for a lower result on target. The weapons performance alone would greatly increase and would waste much less ammunition than 104 rounds at 1km distance for a Single target, when it would actually use the intented ammunition for Soft-targets such as infantry and unarmored vehicles the M799 High Explosive Incendiary rounds which have the doubled punch than HEDP, which have proven not shot much effectivity even when landing centimeters next to its target.
The video posted by magnumcromagnon before which i already described when the Apache WSO started the shooting of the single unarmed person at 1km range with 66 rounds, those rounds landed near him only centimeters and he still kept running the only reason they could kill this person is because of a DIRECT impact on his torso of the poor performance of the M789 round (shaped charge) and the helicopter was left with 26 rounds, if this single round wouldn't hit this person directly the Apache would have wasted every single round of 66 rounds left without any result and the guy would have survived.
Now coming to your claim that there is no probem with the accuracy in this video.
BlackArrow wrote: The question today is not whether the chain gun needed to be fixed or not. There are enough videos online which suggest otherwise and I don't think there are many complaints about the gun's abilities.
Here's the most famous and notorious video of just what the Apache's chain gun is capable off, I don't see too many problems with its accuracy, do you? Enjoy:
The very first engagement of this people who are standing only in a square of 4 of 4 meter after the first 15 rounds burst people could still run away out of this advertized "lethal effective range" of the M789 rounds. The distance is roughly 1200 therefor in the effective range of the M230, at Minute mark 03:07 you see the ridiculous big cloud of dirt and which covers the zone of the CEP of the weapon, which is at least 30 meters in diameter, even if we consider that the running people run about 7 meters of the first engagement zone of those refered 4of4 meter zone where this crowd were standing. At minute 03:12 a single guy is at the wall and the look where the gun mark is facing exactly in his near zone, but there are 4 rounds landing about 15 meter left from his target and keep an eye on the distance to the target it is now only 780 meters and therefor should have been within 10m CEP instead of 15+m CEP like we can see in this video.
So ther are 9 people in total he started shooting crowd of people standing all in the Lethal zone of one Single round, not even speaking of a burst of 15+ rounds and people still can get out of the deadly zone of engagement running away few meters and the helicopter (Crazy Horse 18) is left with 170 rounds of 300, that is the Worst effectivness of any heliborne "accurate and deadly weapon" in todays times.
And the most dispicable thing you could present to this community is a video of Crazy Horse 18, those bastards we all know off, for killing innocent civilians and yelling "let us shoot, man". And than telling me "Enjoy the video"
You can gladly speak that this is the internet and not the real life.
The problem is still the remaining doctrine. A gun that was designed as an aerial weapon system, with todays standards as the most inaccurate autocannon on any dedicated Attack Helicopter, that afterwards switched the doctrine from "Aerial Weapon System" to be now accurate to engage ARMORED targets which have by far smaller dimensions than 15m CEP, with a round that was clearly designed to have the capability to be used against armored targets, a shaped charge round with a copper linner self colapsing to counter the negative effects of rotation on the forming copper jetstream.
The most inaccurate weapon and most ineffective result on target due the use of wrong ammunition for the wrong targets.
That is just a brilliant plan to have the lowest effectiveness on the battlefield. In one video wasting 104 rounds for a single person, than on another video where Any other Helicopter with the use of the right ammunition and much higher accuracy would kill those civilians with a single burst of 15 rounds and not wasting 130 rounds for a crowd which were literally in the dead zone.
collegeboy16 wrote:cant see the video- tho i think its the wikileaks helo vid.
It is the Wikileaks video - it's probably too shocking and traumatic to be using it just to prove my point about gun accuarcy, I'll remove it. Plenty of other videos on the web, but then again they mainly feature the killing of people who probably don't deserve it, even if they are armed.
coolegeboy16 wrote:Also, I think the shaped charge 25mm ammo for the apache is the MIC doing all it can to milk the program. Its got to be a couple hundred bucks a piece while offering little improvement in armor piercing capabilities not to mention because its HEAT lethality is very low unless you hit fuel, ammo or meat.
25 mm ammo, what do you mean? The US army have their reasons for the choice of ammo they use, some of them not to transparent for all to see - are the Russian military any different?
BlackArrow wrote: 25 mm ammo, what do you mean? The US army have their reasons for the choice of ammo they use, some of them not to transparent for all to see - are the Russian military any different?
First of all Apache uses 30x113mm B ammunition (M230EL) not the M242 25mm Bushmaster and it is the same nonsense of US Military to use A-10's with Depleted Uranium ammunition against Taliban polluding the country and have ZERO effect on targets, except polluding the Area for decades and killing and destroying peoples lifes over generations. So tell me what exact obvious reasons are there to use DU rounds which are intented for Anti-Armor role only and the use of HEAT rounds while having much lower effect than HEI rounds which are more effective and have by far lower costs.
For the case of A-10s and use of DU rounds in Afghanistan where no armor is present, there are only 2 conclusions i can draw. They are willing to pollude the entire region which is a war crime due the fact that the Military Industrial Complex has contracts with US Military to be supplied partially with high expensive ammunition rather with the right "weapon" of choice.
Or the US Military has bunch of uneducated people who are not giving a damn about effectiveness, which is often the case, like the use of M829 SABOT rounds against a hiding sniper in Iraq and the use of Javelins and Dragons against Buildings (HEAT) weapons wasting millions just at the end of the day to call a F-16 airstrike for a single guy with a repeating rifle.
What possibility should there be that the US Military is using and wasting ammunition for purposes that are not intented for, with little to no result?
It is no wonder US spends 700 bln USD, when half of that goes for bribed contracts.
And yes, this case was also present for the Soviet Union when back then the Military Industrial Complex had facettes beyond count, but after Yeltzins sold out of Russia and the closure of hundreds of Military State companies, the quantity broke down and today there are only a small percentage of what the Soviet MIC was, meaning the case of bribing and selling more expensive ammunition is less the case, since there are much less manufactors for specific weapons,ammunitions and spare parts.
That does not mean that bribings don't happen, not at all, but for the part about ammunition in last 20 years the technology has improved and today there are lot of fancy expensive stuff out there but which has still not found its way into the military.
magnumcromagnon wrote: Speaking about poor hit probability, here's some more footage of Apache chain-gun fire:
Why have such an inaccurate weapon in the first place?
Well that's a big post - have you ever flown a gunship, or designed one to speak with such 'authority'?
What do you really know about the gun accuracy of the Mi-28?
The chain-gun on the Apache is rarely consistently accurate, for every 1 video showing the Apache firing it's chain-gun accurately, there's a 100 showing it fire inaccurately.
magnumcromagnon wrote: Speaking about poor hit probability, here's some more footage of Apache chain-gun fire:
Why have such an inaccurate weapon in the first place? I agree a grenade launcher makes rather more sense than an inaccurate chain-gun, add a few hundred grenade launcher rounds to Mil-24/35's storage compartment as well as a ammunition feeding system connecting the compartment with the grenade launcher and you have a weapon system designed to engage insurgent/technicals that is significantly more cost-effective than the chain-gun.
I don't see any inaccuracy. It seems to me all targets have been hit eventually. The chaingun is an automatic weapon, it normally fires in bursts like that. What other weapons system are you comparing it to as a benchmark?
Last edited by BlackArrow on Sat Mar 22, 2014 5:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
magnumcromagnon wrote: The chain-gun on the Apache is rarely consistently accurate, for every 1 video showing the Apache firing it's chain-gun accurately, there's a 100 showing it fire inaccurately.
Nonsense. The main thing is at least, that there are always gun camera films made so that any accuracy problems can be studied and rectified afterwards. Have you ever seen the gun camera film from a Mi-24 - how accurate was its gun fire? Is there any evidence that the Mi-24 ever hit a target with its guns at all?
magnumcromagnon wrote: The chain-gun on the Apache is rarely consistently accurate, for every 1 video showing the Apache firing it's chain-gun accurately, there's a 100 showing it fire inaccurately.
Nonsense. The main thing is at least, that there are always gun camera films made so that any accuracy problems can be studied and rectified afterwards. Have you ever seen the gun camera film from a Mi-24 - how accurate was its gun fire? Is there any evidence that the Mi-24 ever hit a target with its guns at all?
Please show me where I stated that the chain-gun on the Mi-24 was accurate?
magnumcromagnon wrote: Speaking about poor hit probability, here's some more footage of Apache chain-gun fire:
Why have such an inaccurate weapon in the first place? I agree a grenade launcher makes rather more sense than an inaccurate chain-gun, add a few hundred grenade launcher rounds to Mil-24/35's storage compartment as well as a ammunition feeding system connecting the compartment with the grenade launcher and you have a weapon system designed to engage insurgent/technicals that is significantly more cost-effective than the chain-gun.
I don't see any inaccuracy. It seems to me all targets have been hit eventually. The chaingun is an automatic weapon, it normally fires in bursts like that. What other weapons system are you comparing it to as a benchmark?
magnumcromagnon wrote: The chain-gun on the Apache is rarely consistently accurate, for every 1 video showing the Apache firing it's chain-gun accurately, there's a 100 showing it fire inaccurately.
Nonsense. The main thing is at least, that there are always gun camera films made so that any accuracy problems can be studied and rectified afterwards. Have you ever seen the gun camera film from a Mi-24 - how accurate was its gun fire? Is there any evidence that the Mi-24 ever hit a target with its guns at all?
Actually if you want to compare weapons than compare weapons of the same class and the Mi-24 either uses a Gatling gun which is not same approach as a single barreled weapon with much more limited ammunition, or a two barreled fixed and turret weapon.
However, i wouldn't be to worried about the accuracy of a Mi-24's Yak-12.7mm gattling, in the war between Iran and Iraq in air to air engagements between Mi-25 (Mi-24D) and Iranian AH-1 helicopters a Mi-25 downed one cobra with 4 bursts of its 12.7mm, a weapon that was never designed to have air to air capability.
Let's come back to the point you try to make, that you can not see any problems with the Apaches chain gun accuracy, since "eventually" all targets were killed.
The use of the word "eventually" should give yourself already a hint that it is not that accurate like you want to portray it.
We have facts from the very first video posted by magnon, where one target took 104 rounds of the 300 total with a range between 1100 and 780 meters, if this was the average you could destroy only maximum 3 targets with that kind of "accuracy". And since you want to try to argue about Apaches accuracy only and not the fact that they clearly use wrong type of ammunition which holds the biggest part in the uneffectivity of Apaches chain gun use in combat environment, so than we just erease this out of the evaluation untill we come to the conclusion how accurate must the Apaches chaingun be to have its advertized effectivity on target.
the point in all this videos is that the majority of rounds don't land even near its target and its advertized 4meter effective range, while the Apache accuracy tests have shown that at least 80% of rounds land in a 8 x 8m zone, of course we have to take the speed and distance into account which would be about 10-12m and maybe 15m CEP when firing off-bore, but the grouping in all those videoes presented show a CEP in all cases exceeding greatly the even worst mark of 15m CEP.
Accurate is a term in military which is bind with at least 80% hit probability, this is a dogmatic mathematical definition of the term "accurate".
Firing 104 round for one Target which could run through the entire time like an olympia sportsmen under fire of explosive rounds impacting around him, that rizes question what person considers this as an Accurate weapon?
I don't want to let it sound that every other attack helicopter hits its target with a direct impact with each single round, but no other single barreled autocannon uses so much ammunition to neutralize a single target. In cases of gatling guns, with high RPM's yes they do are not that accurate, but they usually use smaller rounds with much smaller fragmentations and fragmentation spread over range, meaning a shorter lethal range and therefor need high RPM, but the grouping of YaK-12.7mm Gatling guns are actually pretty accurate, which mostly is a result of the Operators knowledge of burst lentgh and the increasing scattering of bullets.
Second big news (shorter bursts are more accurate than longer bursts, and i think, for this claim i don't need to by leading scientist in any R&D programms.
It is the combination which i already said to the fourth time in exact this thread, the use of wrong ammunition along with a weapon that was designed to be inaccurate in todays times and falsely advertized as accurate, that makes it the least effective weapon among other heliborne autocannons.
The 4 barrel 50 cal gun on the Hind was particularly effective, but was replaced because it lacked range... you don't want to be in an aircraft trading shots with weapons on the ground that hav the range to reach you.
The standard ammo fired by the Hinds was duplex rounds which each had two projectiles for each round, so while they were firing 4,500 rounds per minute they were in effect sending 9,000 projectiles per minute at the target. the result was higher hit probability with a higher density of fire. the main problem of course was that these were conventional jacketed bullets or standard ball rounds so a near miss was not good enough... you needed a direct hit to have an effect and increasing the number of projectiles down range made it very effective out to about 1.5km.
It was going to be replaced by a 23mm cannon but they had problems with the turret so they replaced it with a fixed 30mm cannon firing enormously powerful rounds.
BTW there were two model 4 barrel 12.7mm guns for the Hind... the second one was heavier but could fire the entire load of about 1,440 rounds without overheating.
the current 23mm twin barrel cannon combines high rate of fire so a short burst creates a cluster of impacts rather than a stream, while its low velocity means low recoil and lots of ammo capacity as the rounds are similar to HMG rounds.
the HE payload is very large for the calibre.
Concerning the 30mm gun on the Apache the accuracy shown is not very good considering the targets are being lased and the ballistic computer and gun stabilisation system should be able to keep the gun on target even in burst fire...
It should be pointed out that the Mi-28M will have its nose modified with the external ammo tanks moved inside the aircraft to allow rather more 30mm shells to be carried and to improve the aerodynamics of the aircraft by reducing drag.
GarryB wrote: Concerning the 30mm gun on the Apache the accuracy shown is not very good considering the targets are being lased and the ballistic computer and gun stabilisation system should be able to keep the gun on target even in burst fire...
well, the Apache user countries seem satisfied enough - maybe someone should inform the Indian army that their new attack helicopters have an 'inaccurate' gun - I'm sure they will be intrigued.
Video of a French Eurocopter Tiger firing its cannon at Taliban. The first initial rounds don't seem that very accurate - but they got their man.
In case of Tiger helicopters it has been proven that the helicopter is to leight weight for a 30mm gun. It is very accurate when firing in front arc, with maximum 9°+/- azimuth, without big effect on fuselage or accuracy, but like this video shows the recoil has about 4-8 kN which has a huge impact on the accuracy and another point that was addressed by french military that due the recoil of the 30mm, the structure of the helicopter is highly stressed and even cracks occure.
BlackArrow wrote:well, the Apache user countries seem satisfied enough - maybe someone should inform the Indian army that their new attack helicopters have an 'inaccurate' gun - I'm sure they will be intrigued.
You still are persistent to argue that the gun is "accurate" when footage proofs you wrong?
Speaking about poor hit probability, here's some more footage of Apache chain-gun fire:
Why have such an inaccurate weapon in the first place? I agree a grenade launcher makes rather more sense than an inaccurate chain-gun, add a few hundred grenade launcher rounds to Mil-24/35's storage compartment as well as a ammunition feeding system connecting the compartment with the grenade launcher and you have a weapon system designed to engage insurgent/technicals that is significantly more cost-effective than the chain-gun.
Wow. That video proves just how important helicopter armor can be.
Home
Latest images
Register
Log in
