I usually do not participate in an academic debate such as this, but there is so much incorrect information about real-life systems and how they work that I feel compelled to straighten out few of them:
Wrong. For example Longbow's MW radar system can detect even stationary vehicle up to 6km away (depending on surrounding/masking terrain of course), and a moving target up to 8km away. It can actually even "categorize" the target type roughly (wheeled, tracked etc.) based on its computer's "image libary". It can, after detection hand over the information to the HF MMW missile.Kruder wrote:I think u got it wrong way,there is no locking system against ground vehicles in present warfare,if its not emitting radar waves(except SAM vehicles in PR)
The Longbow fire control radar also incorporates an integrated radar frequency interferometer for passive location and identification of radar-emitting threats. ( - ArmyTechnology.com)
The main passive detection device for non-radar emitting targets is still the FLIR/TADS pod on the nose of Apache - which relies on targets IR signature (heat). Autotracking/lock-on is achieved through image-processing (contrast). Ranging is done with laser/radar.
http://www.jolly-rogers.com/airpower/ah-64d/64d-av.htm
---
Outlawz wrote:Is A10s cannon penetrating the T90 even realistic? Someone said, it isn't and the bullets don't penetrate the hull.
Also, the A10 should have a top speed of 800-900, not 1300
And another issue would be, when you go on higher attitudes, the jet speed increases![]()
GAU-8's true armor penetration potential is probably classified. Majority of the open sources state it's potential AP capability at about 70mm RHA at 500 meters. Intrestingly, the GAU-8's round is based on Oerlikon's 30x173mm rounds - which is stated to have AP penetration of 63mm at 1km with L14A3 tungsten APDS! So actual AP pentration with depleted uranium penetrators is up to anyone's educated quess...
In any case - it will most likely not penetrate front armor of an modern tank, but a volume of hits would certainly cause damage to its optical/sensory systems.
Things get nasty once you hit the MBT's rear or top-armor. These areas are lightly armored, thus penetration is very probable. Reactive armor (explosives) can increase the chance of survival, but high volume of fire - and hits - would "blow off" reactive tiles essentially "peeling" off the reactive armor, leaving the (main) armor exposed for the consecutive hits (either due good, long burst - or second pass of the aircraft).
As for the speed part: I've taken SuperCobra (in game with Emnyron
As for the missiles:
The Hellfire missiles comes in two different versions:
- The laser guided, which will seek to a target illuminated by a coded laser. If the target is "lased" by the chopper itself, the weapons officer view the target through TADS - placing his crosshairs on it and tracking the target untill the impact. Auto-tracking/lock-on is normally used.
- Millimeter-wave guided version, which receives it's target data from the Longbow radar. Guidance to selected target is highly automated.
Track-via-missile systems (like in PR) are not AFAIK generally used for helicopters. Although several proposals for fiber-optic missile system do exist. (AGM-65K/D series "Maverick" has TV/IIR seeker head, but is essentially a fire-and-forget missile, thus it does not count.)
Even the TOW uses SACLOS - so from operators perspective, all he has to do is to "hold" the crosshair on the target center to attain a hit - in theory at least
And finally:
Yes - modern MBT's main cannon, with it's highly sophisticated fire-control system and TIS is very capable of hitting a slow, low-flying helicopter at ranges up to 2km. There's even rounds developed to do exactly that with proximity fuses (or take Israeli LAHAT-round). Even then, helicopter still holds tremendous advantage against MBT, if deployed correctly.
I trust you find this in order,
MOB-24
P.S. sorry about the massive posting, but I had to get this off my chest


