• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Russian TOPOL ICBM launch

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
buck

buck

Lifer
Dec 11, 2000
12,273
4
81
Reminds me of the titan launches as a kid, seemed like 1 out of three blew up. I was to young to understand that it was expensive but the 8 boosters made a nice display.
 
preslove

preslove

Lifer
Sep 10, 2003
16,754
64
91
I think the top was supposed to fall off. It's there to protect the warhead/payload, I think.
 
BrunoPuntzJones

BrunoPuntzJones

Lifer
Feb 24, 2001
14,513
4
81
Pretty impressive. From nothing to launch in less than a minute. Across the globe with such systems and literally in minutes TEOTWAWKI
 
K

Kilgor

Diamond Member
Oct 10, 1999
3,292
0
0
Originally posted by: preslove
I think the top was supposed to fall off. It's there to protect the warhead/payload, I think.
Click to expand...

Looks like it would be a bad thing if it was still on there when you tried to launch. Most likely the easiest was to do it. The Russian like to design things that way, simple but effective.

 
E

everman

Lifer
Nov 5, 2002
11,288
1
0
If the US, or Germans, or pretty much anyone else designed it there'd be some fancy nose cap remover device, very complicated and cool looking, very expensive.

This is Russian style :p
 
theeedude

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Originally posted by: JoeKing
Originally posted by: senseamp
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhS3tmfBPnI&mode=related&search=

I love those counterrotating rotors.
Click to expand...

wierd! what are the pros of such a setup?
Click to expand...

Not sure if it's true, but Wikipedia says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka-50
Like other Kamov's helicopters, it features Kamov's characteristic contra-rotating co-axial rotor system, which removes the need for the entire tail-rotor assembly and improves the aircraft's aerobatic qualities -- it can perform loops, rolls, and ?the funnel? where the aircraft maintains a line-of-sight to target while flying circles of varying altitude, elevation, and airspeed around it. The elimination of the tail rotor is a qualitative advantage because the torque-countering tail rotor can waste up to 30% of engine power. (To begin with, Black Shark's Klimovs offer more shaft horsepower, some 2200 shp apiece, than e.g. Apache's General Electric turbofans, at 1890 shp, which contributes to the superb performance.) Furthermore, the vulnerable boom and rear gearbox are fairly common causes of helicopter losses in combat (as proven in Vietnam); the Black Shark's entire transmission presents a comparatively small target to ground fire. Kamov maintains that the co-axial drive assembly is built to survive hits from 23mm ammunition like the other vital parts of the helicopter. The zero native torque also allows the aircraft to be fairly immune to wind strength and direction, and to have an unsurpassed turn rate in all travel speed envelopes.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty maneuverable, though I don't know how it compares to its rivals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SxK_BEdHa8&mode=related&search=
 
9

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
The Russian equipment always looked neat, but it's inferior to the US's equipment. Take a look at any confrontation between our equipment. For the F-15, for example, its record is something like 100-0.

And for tanks, it's about the same. In Desert Storm, there was a case where one Abrams get hit by an Iraqi T-72, returns fire and destroys it, gets hit again, destroys that one, gets hit again, and proceeds to destroy the rest of the tanks in that group.
 
9

91TTZ

Lifer
Jan 31, 2005
14,374
1
0
Originally posted by: senseamp

Not sure if it's true, but Wikipedia says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ka-50
Like other Kamov's helicopters, it features Kamov's characteristic contra-rotating co-axial rotor system, which removes the need for the entire tail-rotor assembly and improves the aircraft's aerobatic qualities -- it can perform loops, rolls, and ?the funnel? where the aircraft maintains a line-of-sight to target while flying circles of varying altitude, elevation, and airspeed around it. The elimination of the tail rotor is a qualitative advantage because the torque-countering tail rotor can waste up to 30% of engine power. (To begin with, Black Shark's Klimovs offer more shaft horsepower, some 2200 shp apiece, than e.g. Apache's General Electric turbofans, at 1890 shp, which contributes to the superb performance.) Furthermore, the vulnerable boom and rear gearbox are fairly common causes of helicopter losses in combat (as proven in Vietnam); the Black Shark's entire transmission presents a comparatively small target to ground fire. Kamov maintains that the co-axial drive assembly is built to survive hits from 23mm ammunition like the other vital parts of the helicopter. The zero native torque also allows the aircraft to be fairly immune to wind strength and direction, and to have an unsurpassed turn rate in all travel speed envelopes.
Click to expand...

Seems pretty maneuverable, though I don't know how it compares to its rivals.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SxK_BEdHa8&mode=related&search=
Click to expand...

Kamov, who builds that thing, has always made helicopters with the contrarotating rotors. So it was to be expected that when they made an attack helicopter, it would have them also.

The Russian equipment has inferior electronics, though, and will tend to be destroyed by equipment with superior electronics before it even knows they're there.
 
E

everman

Lifer
Nov 5, 2002
11,288
1
0
Is there any helicopter that can really top the Apache? I'm not up on the latest toys...
 
S

Sukhoi

Elite Member
Dec 5, 1999
15,350
106
106
Originally posted by: 91TTZ
The Russian equipment always looked neat, but it's inferior to the US's equipment. Take a look at any confrontation between our equipment. For the F-15, for example, its record is something like 100-0.

And for tanks, it's about the same. In Desert Storm, there was a case where one Abrams get hit by an Iraqi T-72, returns fire and destroys it, gets hit again, destroys that one, gets hit again, and proceeds to destroy the rest of the tanks in that group.
Click to expand...

Well, T-72 is a little old. T-80 or T-90 would be a bit better of an opponent.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom