How should the ukies deal with russian ka-52s that are sniping tanks and IFVs from behind the lines? Is there anything they could do with their ground to air defense or are they just too far for them to reach? Could the F16 snipe the russian helis from a far enough range as not to get hit by the russian AA in return?
Reminder that about 1/3 of them have been shot down.
But I assume they were used on the offensive instead of the defensive positioning they are now utilizing?
No, quite a lot of them were shot down while conducting defensive sniping and considering themselves "safe". Turns out they have no laser warning systems or just keep them turned off for some reason.
>How should the ukies deal with russian ka-52s that are sniping tanks and IFVs from behind the lines?
Ambush.
>How should the ukies deal with russian ka-52s that are sniping tanks and IFVs from behind the lines?
Shoot them down when they are in range.
>russians out there claiming the apache is useless in the face of soviet AA
>suddenly championing the KA-52 as an unbeatable attack helo that can evade soviet-made AA weapons
yes
just shoot it down with a stugna, that seems to work pretty well
You can't hit a chopper with a stugna from 10km away
Send them a bunch of avengers
They seem to be attacking from maximum range.
>the avengers
Stinger isn't getting a lock on anything over 3-4km unless it's the sun or an oil rig fire.
Russian Igla manual (secret document released by some moronic Latin American customers) states max 5 km range is against helicopters. Stinger performance seeker info is classified buy you should expect much higher lock on range, it's different (roset scan) more sensitive design.
Russians lie about the capabilities of their systems, news at 11.
>max 5 km range is against helicopters.
for the missile, not the seeker. If you're shooting at moving targets you have to be able to travel further than the distance between you at the point of firing.
That's engagement envelope number for head-on lauch. 5km is range to the target at the moment of launch (hit would be at lesser range because heli would fly closer during missile flight).
dunno why you're repeating what i said back to me
Launch at 5 km means seeker has lock at this range.
crash kamikaze drones into the rotors
small groups deeper inside enemy lines with starst--jav--stugna
Where dat b***h at
I just did a bit of googling and it looks like the gepards effective AA range is up to 4.5km while the ka52 can shoot as far as 10km. For ambushing it should have no problem but as far as taking care of the problem of the defensive helis no dice
Did we ever get to know what happened to that Gepard? The video recorded by another drone showed how the drone exploded top of it, but there was no apparent damage.
if there was no damage, the ukies would be parading it around gloating.
are you mixing up russian with ukies?
Not really because it tends to be a common occurrence with Lancet hits.
If there was damage the ziggers would be spamming the same image for month to come
ziggers would be the first to parade a destroyed Gepard
Givem the ol' daka daka
>you will never see some blip on the horizon, squint your eyes, "ah, it's an attack heli. warm her up, boys", then aim in the general direction with a spray from the depths of hell and see the black blip become an orange blip
How many do you think they recieved?
Ineffective.
Range of less than 4 km.
Ka-52s can strike from 8-10 km with Vikhr.
F-16s
what with the sudden resurgence of this thing? i thought artillery and mines did most of the work?
Favorable conditions in defensive operations. They hover deep inside Russian controlled territory and snipe with ATGMS outside AA range. AFV moving over open plains are very easy to spot.
Especially in Bradleys, MaxxPros, MRAPs, and Leopards which are huge targets surrounded by flat terrain, slowed down by mines. They couldn't possibly make it any easier for the Russians.
#NATO training
t. Ben Hodges & Rachael Maddow
Literally just armatard spamming after that one video of it missing a bradley
The idea that ka52s are doing anything significant is kind of a disinformation meme. It's minefields and artillery that are doing most of the defense for the russians. Ukraine certainly needs more air defense missiles, but they really need more anti UAV stuff than anti chopper stuff. It's the drones that locate probing attacks and call in artillery.
I don't know how much of a meme it is but I do believe you have a point. There are a bunch of videos around with ka52s doing a lot of damage, however there are a shitton of more footage of armor getting blown up by artillery, mines and lancets as you said.
>There are a bunch of videos around with ka52s doing a lot of damage
may we see them? or is it gonna be 26 different angles of the same missile launch again?
Sorry I'm going off of memory but I recall seeing multiple clips posted in the last few weeks (some of them containing multiple KIA vehicles) with ka52s. I do not have them on hand and I believe the number of kills I've seen is less than 10 - nothing compared to arty kills I'm sure but still rather formidable
Literally the only video we have seen from a Ka-52 was it firing off a missile at a Leo2 and missing it.
There's literally just the one video of a ka52 missing a leopard with a vihkr. The rest are drones recording artillery barrages.
>a bunch
Ive seen two. One is killing innocent harvesters and the other missed completely. The AA in this conflict make helicopters flying coffins
Pitching up and shooting unguided missiles is not sniping.
Anon,,, the rockets are guided
By definition, rockets are unguided. Missiles are rockets that can control where they go.
Thanks for the correction anon. But yes, they are indeed missiles that have a range up to 10 km.
>a range up to 10 km.
From the ka52, it's 8km. The missile only gets to 10km if a plane with forward momentum is launching it.
>The missile only gets to 10km if a plane with forward momentum is launching it.
Same for Iskandar and Memezhal missile. Ruskies add the plane's altitude and velocity to the range of the missile in official documentation. Launching it from a fighter mig and a bomber will give you different ranges, but they only list the max one.
it's not properly guided though
it's laser beam riding, which means it's good against stationary targets but probably sucks against anything that's moving
Missiles are unguided, rockets are allways guided
This is wrong. Any projectile moving thru the air can be considered a missile. It is a loose definition. And a rocket is anything powered by a rocket engine, so by chemical reaction causing thrust. Examples: an arrow is a missile. Cruise missiles, which are not powered by rocket engines but by jet engines, are missiles. ICBMs, which are rocket powered and guided, are missiles. The GMLRS that HIMARS shoots are guided rockets, and called guided rockets by name. Something being a missile or a rocket has nothing to do with if its guided or not. Rockets are just a type of missile.
Is there a video of that Ka-52 attack on the Bradleys and Leopard 2?
With current weapons: surpressive artillery fire (preferably with proxy fuse or cluster rounds) on the their launch areas (not very effective but at least some discomfort).
Hard counter: Spike-ER ATGM but Israel ain't gonna sell em. Or even allow second hand transfers. Brits have them and eager to help Ukraine but they are not donated that means blocked by Israel.
That rises interesting point that US has best mil tech in every field, they simply doesn't have such system despite decades of trying.
Any plans for sending these bad boys to Ukraine?
Probably a waste of time if Russia has air superiority.
Let me solo one and I'll barrel-roll + TV missile those russian jets straight out of the skies.
Ah-64 faired surprisingly well against fast jets in trials/wargames.
The Apache is basically an incredibly maneuverable AA platform that can hug terrain, move rapidly and change direction.
>obviously take this with a pinch of salt
Remember those Ukie helo's that crossed Russian border and struck the depo?
Now imagine if they were Apache's instead of multiple-decade old slavshit
Those were essentially dogfighting trials.
The lesson learned by jet pilots was "don't try to fight a helicopter in his element, just delete it from long range with a missile lmao".
Yeah this. There was an era where it was a legitimate problem since look-down shoot-down missiles/radars were hard to come by and, theoretically, if you missed your one shot (one opportunity) as a fighter jet the helicopter could nail you with its chain gun or IR missile as you flew past. If you're not using all-aspect missiles with off boresight capability then turn rate/turn radius is king and helicopters have the neat quality of being able to turn while stationary, it's not fun to deal with.
But now? Just lock up the helicopter from 30 nmi away lol, just launch a BVR missile lmao. What's the nerd gonna do when a missile is coming down at him from a 60 degree angle? Land and cover himself with rocks? Lmao.
>1979
These helicopters must be operating from Ukrainian land in order to be able to respond quickly. Not sure what is stopping Ukraine from lobbing their long range missiles at helicopter bases.
What are you going to aim for? Helicopters don't require a runway, don't have to live in a hangar, and can easily take off and move if they get a radar warning that a missile is incoming.
True, destroying the supply lines and ammo depos is far more important
Yeah I realise it's obviously not simple otherwise they'd already have wiped out most of the fleet on the ground but I assume that helicopters need some logistical support in the long run like fuelling and maintenance facilities, ammo supplies, lodgings for ground staff, etc. and that this stuff is bound to be detectable on satellite pictures.
Similar to their ammo depots, Russia has had to push their helicopter bases back out of HIMARS range. This is probably why we haven't been seeing much Ka-52 action, as the response time would be a lot worse and they'd have less loiter time due to the extra distance they have to travel.
Surely US satellite coverage of that whole theatre is so complete that they can just track those choppers in real-time to see where they land?
Ukraine has been doing this for the entire war. Remember that one Russian occupied airbase in Kherson that kept getting shelled and having aircraft destroyed there? That was a helicopter base. So far, Russia has had to push their helicopter landing pads so far back it's significantly affecting their response times.
Oh god i forgot about that. That thing was getting hit every damned week
Just yesterday another KA-52 hit the ground, muh sniping from behind the lines kek
any info on how it was shot down?
Unfortunately not, only "Our soldiers destroyed yet another Ka-52 attack helicopter, also known as Alligator,"
General Staff press office.
>No prove
>No source
blatan cope
Armatard sucks donkey dicks.
>How should the ukies deal with russian ka-52s that are sniping tanks and IFVs from behind the lines?
Since Putin has had to keep them in reserve for whole year and a half I guess he doesn't have enough of them to begin with
Tally Ho Skipper!
Watching people fricking buzz modern helis in WT with biplanes is peak comedy
Honestly only joy I get out of Warthunder anymore is playing RB with some plane or tank 3-5 BRs below everyone else and still killing oblivious idiots because they get fixated on a target.
if i remember correctly sweden did some wargames with the usa and found that the american helicopters would be a huge problem because sweden didnt have anything except jets and short range stuff.
>ka-52 sniping
Are they though? As far as I can tell it’s been mostly running into mines. Not any direct fire actions, just trying to breach outer defenses and driving over mines.
There's probably a handful doing stuff and a few videos have come out of them using ATGMs but yes, most of the killing does seem to be done by artillery after they hit mines.
morons are just posting this shit about the Ka-52 because Russian media has begun portraying it as a wunderwaffe.
I suppose a drone would work, especially if the thing is hovering in place.
F16
De man is killing us man!
PRESS DA BOMB OVER
What I find ridiculous is anyone who plays milsim games would tell you NATO SHORAD is horrifically stupid and lacking.
Yet if you were to complain in the past you would just get autistic screeching about how real war isn't a video game and the total lack of mobile and self sufficient AA with a proper range isn't a real problem.
NATO SHORAD is bad because if NATO planes can't operate with enough impunity to keep the enemy air force permanently grounded, things are so completely fricked anyway that it doesn't matter. As it turns out, NATO didn't build their hardware, R&D, and procurement around the idea that it needed to be useful in a proxy war slapfight.
>NATO SHORAD is bad because if NATO planes can't operate with enough impunity to keep the enemy air force permanently grounded, things are so completely fricked anyway that it doesn't matter. As it turns out, NATO didn't build their hardware, R&D, and procurement around the idea that it needed to be useful in a proxy war slapfight.
This in itself is incredibly short sighted, the idea that there's no possible varying levels of conflict besides nothing and total vatnik annihilation where every enemy aviation asset is instantly destroyed is pretty dumb. Using that logic you may as well focus on nukes and nothing else. Even in vietnam they weren't given free reign to strike anywhere they wanted.
>Even in vietnam they weren't given free reign to strike anywhere they wanted.
Who? Soviets?
>milsim games
>russian equpment stats
Oh i am laffin
Reminder that the bulbous nose radar dome is plywood.
>america uses plywood to build houses
>America plywood...stronk?
>we will also use plywood!
Cargo cult
>Shit talking plywood
She's coming for you.
>engineered materials that fit a specific purpose is bad
It's almost like there is a point to it. But I guess they should waste money on inventing a new material when an existing one already meets the specifications.
Materials other than plywood have been used in aircraft for decades, no need to invent anything.
This thing is a piece of shit lmao. Just like Russia
Ka-52 destroying a whole column. is ogre.
send them some ADATS or flarakrads
works in a certain unnameable video game
>ADATS
Shame the leafs scrapped them all.
>
If only
>does something once
>for like the first time in the war
>6 days ago
>HOMG HOW DO WE RESPOND TO THIS
This is probably armatard considering this is the 4th day in a row he makes the same thread.
>This is probably armatard
Always possible, but the recent rash of spam has been unironic commie tankie homosexuals from /leftypol/.
Just sneak a Patriot battery up to the zaporizia frontline and watch 6 helicopters get shot down in 1 day
>Could the F16 snipe the russian helis from a far enough range as not to get hit by the russian AA in return?
yes
misle
They need the F16s
Should have waited for them. Ovari da
These are designed to protect Leo2.
Notice the Osiris system on top of the rotors. Allows the Tiger to stay behind the horizon and yet see the battle field and send their stuff.
Leo2 and Tiger where meant to be a pair.
they have to buy turkish korkut aa and laser systems
Russia recently equipped these with a new countermeasure suite, it appears to be effective as these things have been dabbing on Ukrainian armored formations since the counter offensive began
"Mooooooom! Mooooooom! I posted it again!"
Tractors don't count pidor.
The Ka-52 mine layer?
Bring in AA, but what will the cities then be protected with? It's been a while since the last Kiev strike, it would be a shame if a new massive strike is done after all the AA is shipped to the frontline. :*~~*~~
Ka52 main task is target designation for other assets. this kind of task can be quite dangerous and its outdated in the era of drones
>How should the ukies deal with russian ka-52s
They can't
There is nothing they can do
They mostly just hope one won't be operating in their AO on a given day
they seem quite vulnerable to me
its very vulnerable to infantry armed with missiles and even small arms. its very agile but has less armor than the hind.
>hind
>armor
it cant take missiles like that but it has good protection from ground fire
>There is nothing they can do
>gets btfo by remote controlled TOW (twice)
>loses 1/3 of its total number built
Nothing personnel
Captcha: ST4NK
Ziggers parked them in Berdyansk.
they can't.
those helicopters are in the air because Ukrainians have a lot less SAMs to counter them.
These things would be operating from within GMLRS range, no? Might be easiest to hit them on the ground if NATO can provide the real-time intel.
They have a stated combat range of like 400 km anon, so not necessarily. That being said if the Russians are parking them in the open without revetments as in
even a shitty modernized Soviet era ballistic missile could frick them up.
But otherwise you're right, yes. Generally the easiest way to kill helicopters is to just kill them when they're on the ground.
their designed to kill armored vehicles, but are really easy targets for MANPADs and other AA at low altitude.
Write to your local government to get congress to restart and mass produce frontline support vehicles such as AGDS.
Dumb.
Many such cases/
Whatever Ukraine needs is Spike-ER wundermissile. But Israeli wouldn't supply it to Ukraine and US doesn't have such tech because reasons (have M10 Booker instead!).
First mines how its helicopters russians have been using since day one, whatever will be next