Jump to content


Photo

Weapon Swap

weapon swap

  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Sikkiyn

Sikkiyn

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 4,660 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 September 2017 - 2342 PM

Curious,

 

is it possible for an Mi-24 to use a Tow, Hot, Milan, or Hellfire, and likewise can a Tiger or Apache use a Vikhr?

Could a Su 25 use a CBU or Mk82, and could an A10 use a FAB 250?



#2 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 04 September 2017 - 0002 AM

Curious,

 

is it possible for an Mi-24 to use a Tow, Hot, Milan, or Hellfire, and likewise can a Tiger or Apache use a Vikhr?

Could a Su 25 use a CBU or Mk82, and could an A10 use a FAB 250?

1st one would be hard w/o exchange of the guidance unit due the totally different guidance methods. Wire guided missiles were readily exchangeable, local Gazelle hellos used SACLOS Saggers with original sight and are compatible with TOW and HOT.

2nd one however is easy - yes, but ordnance needs to have either correct lug spacing or adapter. Both methods were used here (locally produced ordnance had western spaced lugs on one, soviet on other side), hence MiG-21 with BL-755 CBU:

14ufkg5.jpg

Mig-21 was cleared for almost every US and UK made weapon (plus a lot of ex-WW2 German bombs) that were used locally.

Only thing needed were new bombsight markings.


Edited by bojan, 04 September 2017 - 0005 AM.


#3 Panzermann

Panzermann

    REFORGER '79

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,444 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Teutonistan

Posted 05 September 2017 - 0405 AM

(locally produced ordnance had western spaced lugs on one, soviet on other side),

 

 

that is so typically yugoslavian. :D

 

Makes me wonder which of the two mountng standards was considered better or the pros and cons of each?



#4 Adam_S

Adam_S

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 882 posts

Posted 05 September 2017 - 0640 AM

In the case of laser guided weapons, the laser beam is actually a coded pulse rather than a steady beam IIRC. The idea is to make sure that the missile can't lock onto a different designator than the one it is meant to. Potential issues could be that a different laser can't generate the correct pulses or that it operates on a different frequency to one that the missile can see. Probably more challenging is making sure that the missile can receive cuing information from the helicopter's fire control system so that it knows where it's supposed to be looking for the laser spot and also, for that matter, when it's time to fly off the rail.

 

None of that should be particularly problematic to do but it would require some kind of effort to integrate the weapon onto the airframe.



#5 bojan

bojan

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 9,639 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Belgrade, Serbia
  • Interests:Obscure tanks and guns.
    Obscure facts about well known tanks and guns.
    Obscure historical facts.

Posted 07 September 2017 - 1848 PM

 

Makes me wonder which of the two mountng standards was considered better or the pros and cons of each?

 

Basically same mounting type, just different spacing. British WW2 mounting was however almost insane - it used single lug for all ordnance (but four stabilizers), while in Soviet and US version anything over ~50kg used two lugs...



#6 Dawes

Dawes

    Crew

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,798 posts

Posted 07 September 2017 - 1951 PM

Standard US spacing is 14 inch for anything 1000 lbs and under.



#7 EvanDP

EvanDP

    Deus Ex Nukina

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,349 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Los Angeles, California, USA
  • Interests:SciFi, firearms, Military history, computers, redheads

Posted 07 September 2017 - 2335 PM

I'm guessing the Chinese use Soviet/Russian spacing and lugs?






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users