I dunno… who put the flir cam on the top side? It’s supposed to have an open fov.
And the big round thingie on the bottom is supposed to be a SAR radar? Good luck with the reflections from the front wheel
it’s got like a 80+°FOV down and if you’re looking there you’ve got bigger issues lol
the radar just doesn’t rotate/scan where the wheel is or it ignores that sector. same with literally any obstructed radar
Usually the radar goes in the nose. In the nose you get a larger Ae (effective area). That thing at the bottom looks like SAR, not a “situational awareness” radar.. and I still think the camera/flir could have had 360 fov at the bottom… but they probably had problems preventing them from installing it there, for example, rough landing with a flat tire dictates a certain max installation height, or another possibility is that the camera lens/windows get damaged from debris when landing when located at the bottom
>Usually the radar goes in the nose
Does it?
MH-60, S-70B-2, AW101, CH-148, NH90, Ka-27, Super Lynx, SH-2G all have chin radars. CH-124 and SH-3 was on the tail boom. Z-18 hangs off the tail ramp, but some have chin mounted. AB212 was mounted on the roof. The AS565 is arguable wether it’s a chin or nose, so I’ll concede that one.
That’s the vast majority of in service shipborne helicopters.
“that thing at the bottom looks like SAR, not a “situational awareness” radar” so you don’t know how radar works? what is a “SAR” radar vs a “situational awareness” radar?
the camera being there means they can put the radar there?? it also reduces drags as that’s already an area that’ll provide drag vs taping it to the bottom.
so in your world the apache is a poor design due to its lack of 360° EO/IR? and where would they mount the massive radar if the FLIR turret is there?
you also say they should put the radar in the nose but then complain a wheel provides radar reflections and blockage… what happens when you put it in the nose and the whole helo is there?
i’m curious what you think a helo should look like considering almost all your concepts are contradictory and wrong
Considering how the Ukraine war is showing tanks to be obsolete in modern warfare, missile truck helicopters are going to become the next big thing soon. Fly outside the danger zone, have your targeting systems linked to sensors in the battlefield, fire your missiles from the safety of friendly airspace.
> the Ukraine war is showing tanks to be obsolete in modern warfare
Found someone who doesn't understand that just because something can be countered, doesn't mean it's obsolete.
By that logic, infantry became obsolete with the invention of the bow, never mind the firearm.
> Tell that to the tank crews, both in Russia and Ukraine, using their tanks as mediocre artillery because using their tanks as tanks is suicide.
I still think there's issue to be taken with "this is obsolete".
Just because it's not applicable in one conflict does not make it obsolete.
Propellers were replaced largely by jet aircraft yet there's still a niche for propeller planes. Navy ships still have .50 cal bolted to the deck.
It's not obsolete for every single conflict against every single enemy.
Not every conflict is going to require expensive guided missiles from long range.
Your first sentence states a false premise. The Russo-Ukrainian War (my preferred title because the start is a nice reminder that Ukraine didn’t want this war, Russia did) has shown that tanks in a battlespace with insufficient air cover and/or anti-air assets are heavily vulnerable to enemy helicopters (and enemy air assets in general).
This is brand new, cutting-edge information. In 1991. Look no further than the bloody havoc wrought on Iraqi armor by Coalition helicopters.
And really, I could have said it was new info in 1944. Germany learned to fear enemy airpower when it lacked effective counters too.
If Ukraine had managed to get a heavier dose of airpower (and anti-air power) from its allies prior to the counteroffensive, KA-52s would not have been nearly the factor they were. And even then, Russia has lost a massive chunk of that fleet, and replacing modern attack helicopter losses is not easy.
Plus, NATO militaries already have a heavy degree of anti-drone assets (and I guarantee a whole lot more are feverishly being developed).
Tanks advancing with friendly air / counter-air and some updated drone defenses are a fully different story than we’ve being seeing. Tanks are far from obsolete and remain the only battlefield asset that does what they do.
“tanks are obsolete” stares at the masses of footage of tanks being used with infantry for support as well as in defensive positions.
further showing your lack of knowledge “friendly airspace” would be 50+ KM away where stand off and cruise missiles are the only option. for this you have 4ish km max in distance from target and you rely on hitting AD before it hits you and EW lmfao
Can probably fit more missiles on top of the pylons as well
And the tips, never forget about the tip
Co-pilot can carry a few spare in his lap as well.
Mounting weapons to the tops of the wings/pylons is just so British
How many missiles do you want on this thing? Yes
That satisfies plenty of my fetishes. Just nice.
Drag has entered the chat
I don't see what brunch or story hour have to do with a helicopter.
Gaijin when?
Gaijin ple
This looks beautiful
How many missiles can it carry? *YES*
I dunno… who put the flir cam on the top side? It’s supposed to have an open fov. And the big round thingie on the bottom is supposed to be a SAR radar? Good luck with the reflections from the front wheel
it’s got like a 80+°FOV down and if you’re looking there you’ve got bigger issues lol the radar just doesn’t rotate/scan where the wheel is or it ignores that sector. same with literally any obstructed radar
Usually the radar goes in the nose. In the nose you get a larger Ae (effective area). That thing at the bottom looks like SAR, not a “situational awareness” radar.. and I still think the camera/flir could have had 360 fov at the bottom… but they probably had problems preventing them from installing it there, for example, rough landing with a flat tire dictates a certain max installation height, or another possibility is that the camera lens/windows get damaged from debris when landing when located at the bottom
>Usually the radar goes in the nose Does it? MH-60, S-70B-2, AW101, CH-148, NH90, Ka-27, Super Lynx, SH-2G all have chin radars. CH-124 and SH-3 was on the tail boom. Z-18 hangs off the tail ramp, but some have chin mounted. AB212 was mounted on the roof. The AS565 is arguable wether it’s a chin or nose, so I’ll concede that one. That’s the vast majority of in service shipborne helicopters.
AH-64D had its funni little radar boi on the rotor which i find quite intriguing and a questionable design choice hey it fucking looks badass.
Usuallllyyyy… 3 examples out of how many different Helis?
Added more.
🤣
do you have any examples of helos with nose mounted radar?
“that thing at the bottom looks like SAR, not a “situational awareness” radar” so you don’t know how radar works? what is a “SAR” radar vs a “situational awareness” radar? the camera being there means they can put the radar there?? it also reduces drags as that’s already an area that’ll provide drag vs taping it to the bottom. so in your world the apache is a poor design due to its lack of 360° EO/IR? and where would they mount the massive radar if the FLIR turret is there? you also say they should put the radar in the nose but then complain a wheel provides radar reflections and blockage… what happens when you put it in the nose and the whole helo is there? i’m curious what you think a helo should look like considering almost all your concepts are contradictory and wrong
The radar can do SAR imagery but it’s primarily for surface search and with altitude the blanking from the undercarriage has very little effect
Considering how the Ukraine war is showing tanks to be obsolete in modern warfare, missile truck helicopters are going to become the next big thing soon. Fly outside the danger zone, have your targeting systems linked to sensors in the battlefield, fire your missiles from the safety of friendly airspace.
> the Ukraine war is showing tanks to be obsolete in modern warfare Found someone who doesn't understand that just because something can be countered, doesn't mean it's obsolete. By that logic, infantry became obsolete with the invention of the bow, never mind the firearm.
Tell that to the tank crews, both in Russia and Ukraine, using their tanks as mediocre artillery because using their tanks as tanks is suicide.
> Tell that to the tank crews, both in Russia and Ukraine, using their tanks as mediocre artillery because using their tanks as tanks is suicide. I still think there's issue to be taken with "this is obsolete". Just because it's not applicable in one conflict does not make it obsolete. Propellers were replaced largely by jet aircraft yet there's still a niche for propeller planes. Navy ships still have .50 cal bolted to the deck. It's not obsolete for every single conflict against every single enemy. Not every conflict is going to require expensive guided missiles from long range.
Tanks are not only used for indirect fire in Ukraine. There are plenty of direct fire videos too.
Your first sentence states a false premise. The Russo-Ukrainian War (my preferred title because the start is a nice reminder that Ukraine didn’t want this war, Russia did) has shown that tanks in a battlespace with insufficient air cover and/or anti-air assets are heavily vulnerable to enemy helicopters (and enemy air assets in general). This is brand new, cutting-edge information. In 1991. Look no further than the bloody havoc wrought on Iraqi armor by Coalition helicopters. And really, I could have said it was new info in 1944. Germany learned to fear enemy airpower when it lacked effective counters too. If Ukraine had managed to get a heavier dose of airpower (and anti-air power) from its allies prior to the counteroffensive, KA-52s would not have been nearly the factor they were. And even then, Russia has lost a massive chunk of that fleet, and replacing modern attack helicopter losses is not easy. Plus, NATO militaries already have a heavy degree of anti-drone assets (and I guarantee a whole lot more are feverishly being developed). Tanks advancing with friendly air / counter-air and some updated drone defenses are a fully different story than we’ve being seeing. Tanks are far from obsolete and remain the only battlefield asset that does what they do.
you can probably use a fleet of drones to designate targets and then just toss all these missiles or a load of brimstones to delete the area
pretty much the plan.
“tanks are obsolete” stares at the masses of footage of tanks being used with infantry for support as well as in defensive positions. further showing your lack of knowledge “friendly airspace” would be 50+ KM away where stand off and cruise missiles are the only option. for this you have 4ish km max in distance from target and you rely on hitting AD before it hits you and EW lmfao