Ka-50 Combat Effectiveness

[Sceptre]

it's because if you go too fast in the ka50 the rotors with hack each other to pieces making an ejection seat nice to have :P

[Isegrim]

 

Autorotation without mainrotor is extremly hard to manage.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tsumikae]

:D

Man, I trust you so much!

[Isegrim]

Man, I trust you so much!

 

 

 

Edited May 9, 2014 by Isegrim

[GGTharos]

The Ka-50 uses a gun that was built for an IFV to fight other IFVs. It's more powerful and has longer range and accuracy, but much higher recoil and fewer rounds.

 

The apache's gun was specifically built to destroy soft targets and infantry, and is basically an area effect weapon. It isn't really meant to take on hard targets, you have your hellfires for that.

 

:) However, you might be right. Shark's cannon is used for destroying targets, everything from soft targets to armored vehicles. What is Apaches gun (what's the caliber of it) for?

 

Reminder: SAM = Stealth STOP! (see GG's signature)

[Fishbreath]

I actually like the Ka-50's standard loadout (12 Vikhrs, two rocket pods) better than the Apache loadout options (8 Hellfires+rockets, or 16 Hellfires), from a versatility standpoint.

[pepin1234]

For the Apache I have this Beast. 24 Vikhr to Punch everybody like a Party. Also with Option to carrie 4 Iglas A-A Missiles. No too bad...

 

The Pic is in the Russian Helicopter web. Oh my...

 

 

[ФрогФут]

@Frogfoot

you said that coaxial rotor helicopters produce more noise? This is interesting as I thought it wasn't the case. The ingame Ka-50 seems extremely quiet... I wouldn't really know for sure as New Zealand doesn't have any coaxial rotor choppers :)

Both rotors generate sound of +- same frequency - interference probably.

The Pic is in the Russian Helicopter web. Oh my...

Promo only.:)

[Isegrim]

Yeah i also have seen the KA52 with max. 16 Vikhrs on the same carriage like the Tfrog uses(or nearly the same carriage).

[Zakatak]

So what I'm curious is, if the Ka-50 is so disadvantaged compared to other gunships (as this thread seems to indicate), why did Kamov want to try and build a single seat attack helicopter in the first place?

[GGTharos]

They had their reasons. But the Ka-50 was never accepted as a serious gunship by the army. They did point out that it would need better sensors etc, and at that point money run out or got assigned elsewhere.

 

Specifically when comparing it to the Apache, the Ka-50 is a concept, the Apache is a fighting machine. From my perspective, showing that it is disadvantaged is not for the purpose of dissing the Ka-50. It can be made better, but that choice was never made: Two seaters rule.

 

The reality of the matter is that the Ka-50 is just not straight-up competitive with other gunships, even its contemporaries as realized in real life.

 

So what I'm curious is, if the Ka-50 is so disadvantaged compared to other gunships (as this thread seems to indicate), why did Kamov want to try and build a single seat attack helicopter in the first place?

[Scrim]

It's simple. To make the most out of essentially any military vehicle, you need to cram certain technological things into it. If you want it to be a potent attack helicopter, you're going to need quite a few of these things as you're essentially building an MBT that flies. That is obviously going to require people to handle things. Two seaters are complex enough as they are (the washout rate for Apache pilots exceed the washout rate for Navy SEALs IIRC, at least in the UK). Taking it down to one single pilot, and you've got to chose between a helicopter that won't fly, or a helicopter where the second pilot is replaced by machines. Since we have yet to reach the stage where machines trump humans in more than one dimension, that means you'll end up with a severely dumbed down helicopter.

 

The Ka-50 is a helicopter that currently requires an autopilot for the pilot to be able to look around much. It has a very narrow FOV compared to contemporary attack helicopters, which means it has to fly a zig-zag pattern to look around. Considering that attack helicopters are essentially 50/50 attack and scouting, it's an almost worthless design. The best that upgrades could do would be to make it level with attack helicopters of the day it was first built, but nowhere close to current ones like the AH-64D or the WAH-64.

 

In operations its lack of vision has forced it to fly with Ka-27s that are considerably slower, or with Hinds, the helicopter it was supposed to replace.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Scrim

[pepin1234]

one Pilot for one Helicopter = more pilots available, when shoot down or damage less pilots lost, less risk, low weigh, more maneuverable.

 

Specifically when comparing it to the Apache, the Ka-50 is a concept, the Apache is a fighting machine. From my perspective, showing that it is disadvantaged is not for the purpose of dissing the Ka-50. It can be made better, but that choice was never made: Two seaters rule.

 

The reality of the matter is that the Ka-50 is just not straight-up competitive with other gunships, even its contemporaries as realized in real life.

 

up the moment the Ka-50 go into combat Service in Chechenia, then this proyect is not a concept.

 

The Ka-50 single seat was Abandoned not only because the sensors, also cuz the weapons. (in my opinion not reliable for a single seat Heli against a large number of enemy tanks)

 

I dont believe the Ka-50 was not competitive with even ist contemporaries Helis as you said. The lack of funds and the existence of the Mi-24/35 and the Mi-28N, together with all the bad Situation of the Russian Military Industry of the 90s put the proyect in a non-realized condition.

Edited May 11, 2014 by pepin1234

[Scrim]

If you were to implement certain features in tanks, you could probably get a 1 man tank. You reckon it's a good idea? Its inability to perform at least half of its intended missions (scouting) due to lacks so severe that it needs the helicopter it was designed to replace to find targets for it and make sure it doesn't get shot down by something it's completely unable to see for itself without an absurd amount of maneuvering is hardly made up for by only having to train one pilot per helicopter.

 

If anything, the redeeming virtues it has in that less pilots are lost when it's shot down isn't something that makes it better than other attack helicopters; It is something that makes up for its own flaws to a certain degree. It is a redeeming feature because it lessens a problem caused by its own concept in the first place.

 

Also, it's not lower weight. Despite it's many disadvantages in technology and such, the Ka-50 weights 1800kg more than the Apache.

[pepin1234]

If you were to implement certain features in tanks, you could probably get a 1 man tank. You reckon it's a good idea? Its inability to perform at least half of its intended missions (scouting) due to lacks so severe that it needs the helicopter it was designed to replace to find targets for it and make sure it doesn't get shot down by something it's completely unable to see for itself without an absurd amount of maneuvering is hardly made up for by only having to train one pilot per helicopter.

 

If anything, the redeeming virtues it has in that less pilots are lost when it's shot down isn't something that makes it better than other attack helicopters; It is something that makes up for its own flaws to a certain degree. It is a redeeming feature because it lessens a problem caused by its own concept in the first place.

 

Also, it's not lower weight. Despite it's many disadvantages in technology and such, the Ka-50 weights 1800kg more than the Apache.

 

first the Topic here is is the Ka-50 have combat effectiveness so we must talk about the wonderful maneuverability of this machine, so not absurd at all as u said. The Ka-50 have more powerful engines so yes is heavier than other Helicopters but much more maneuverable and faster. Also the Ka-50 have not rear rotor, so this together with the maneuverability give to this machine a high survival in combat.

 

Non combat Helicopter should be alone in the battlefield, so the threat must be eliminated also by the ground friendly vehicles or ground Forces.

[ShuRugal]

Also, it's not lower weight. Despite it's many disadvantages in technology and such, the Ka-50 weights 1800kg more than the Apache.

 

true, but it also has twice the rotor area (same rotor diameter, twice as many rotor disks) and uses its engine power (of which it has an extra 400 horses) significantly more efficiently.

 

Despite the extra weight, the KA-50 manages to have a higher cruising speed and maximum level-flight speed. Rate of climb is stated by wiki to favour the Apache, but I am highly skeptical of this figure simply because the KA 50 has a much more favourable power-to-weight ratio (after factoring out tail rotor losses), and an obscenely low disc loading, comparatively.

[Sceptre]

IMO the coaxial rotor design is excellent for gunships but the 1 pilot design isn't, which is why they made the Ka-52.

The main downside to coaxial rotors is that an ejection seat is ESSENTIAL, which makes the helicopter heavier.

[Flagrum]

While I clearly see the benefits of two pairs of eyes vs. one pair of eyes in an attack aircraft, I wonder why other platforms still do quite well with the latter - for example our beloved A-10C.

So what are the fundamental differences that make a one seater attack airplane quite feasible, but a one seater attack helo not? One aspect I probably can identify myself: helos are operating usually much closer to the enemy and thus are exposed higher risks. Is that it or is there more to consider?

[GGTharos]

The fundamental differences are the fact that your attack heli is an IFV that flies. It has turreted weapons (or it is itself a turret) and flies at an altitude where lack of constant attention means death.

 

It has nothing to do with 'two pairs of eyes are better than one'. One drives, the other scans and employs weapons.

[Scrim]

first the Topic here is is the Ka-50 have combat effectiveness so we must talk about the wonderful maneuverability of this machine, so not absurd at all as u said. The Ka-50 have more powerful engines so yes is heavier than other Helicopters but much more maneuverable and faster. Also the Ka-50 have not rear rotor, so this together with the maneuverability give to this machine a high survival in combat.

 

Non combat Helicopter should be alone in the battlefield, so the threat must be eliminated also by the ground friendly vehicles or ground Forces.

 

1, Its speed is not a factor to take into consideration, as it's dependent on other helicopters for finding targets, as has been mentioned.

 

2, No. No rear rotor isn't much of an improvement in survivability, since very few helicopters in combat are Black Hawk Down'd. And considering how it's co-axial rotors are known to strike each other if the helicopter flies too fast or makes too tough manoeuvres, I don't think it's that much more survivable.

 

3, Seriously? You think attack helicopters should never leave the safety of flying above areas controlled by friendly ground forces? Yeah, that's gonna make for a great attack helicopter.

[PLP]

While I clearly see the benefits of two pairs of eyes vs. one pair of eyes in an attack aircraft, I wonder why other platforms still do quite well with the latter - for example our beloved A-10C.

So what are the fundamental differences that make a one seater attack airplane quite feasible, but a one seater attack helo not? One aspect I probably can identify myself: helos are operating usually much closer to the enemy and thus are exposed higher risks. Is that it or is there more to consider?

 

A plane also takes a lot less effort to fly compared to a helo (the A10 you cite is a good example: put it in path or altitude hold and you can devote 95% of your attention to the sensors & weapons).

 

As to the Apache v ka50, the Apache is probably way more effective, although I would personally much more like to sit in a ka50 for its survivability (ejection seat most of all) if I had a choice.