Russia Orders dozens of Ka-50 and 52 Helos

[EvilBivol-1]

It's a religious debate on every Russian aviation forum...

 

I think Kamov was simply ahead of its time in trying to develop a single-seat attack helo. The avionics aren't advanced enough to allow one pilot free reign over flying and fighting in the helicopter. The chopper is sorely missing a fully developed helmet sight, smarter HOTAS, more autonomous targeting and guidence systems and of course true night capability. As it is, the machine is a very interesting and novel aircraft from an engineering perspective, but is limited in its operational scope.

[GGTharos]

I'll bite, nice press release hehe. But I think Eurocopter would beg to differ :P

 

The Eurocopter would beg to keep up in terms of flight performance. Avionics ... different story.

[GGTharos]

To be honest I have quite some reservations about the Ka-50. The single seat concept of a attack helicopter wont really work out. Even with the great amount of automatisation, as long as the pilot has his head down in the Shkval screen nobody will scan the outside and keep SA high. Let alone maneuver while doing target scans.

 

That is why it needs new avionics and sensors - the SHKVAL plain has to go - it has a limited FOV and no night-vision capability. Instead they need an IR ball turret dealie and HMD similar to IHADS/PNVS on the Apache.

That way the sensor follows the motion of your head, while displaying its image in a monocle - so it looks where you look.

 

I guess one of the big advantages the Mi-28 has is the canon that has a excellent field of fire and the fact that one crew member can solely concentrate on spotting and shooting. This might make up for a lot of missing maneuverability when engaging targets in mountainous terrain.

 

 

That -is- always an advantage, but there's something it will never make up for: Sheer performance when those mountain drafts grab a hold of ya ...

[D-Scythe]

All this talk about agility...in the end, does it really matter? You're in a helicopter for crying out loud - an SA-18 isn't going to care if you're an Mi-28N or Ka-50. While the extra speed/manueverability is good for dodging RPGs and small arms, you're not going to be killing tanks by dancing around in your Kamov at 300 kmph - ideally, you should be popping up from behind a ridgeline, shoot your missiles, then getting the hell out of there.

 

And helicopter vs. helicopter battles rarely happen, and when they do, the loser usually gets speared by a Stinger or Vikhr missile 5 klicks away.

[GGTharos]

But the agility -is- important when fighting in themountains against basically infantry. You'll be close, and any motion you make makes it harder for them. Granted, that's not innate to the Ka-50, but if I understand what's been said correctly, lateral traversals are quick and painless with this heli, as opposed to convetional helis. In confined or difficult areas this freedom may well make all the difference in the world - and the extra lift certainly does.

[D-Scythe]

But the agility -is- important when fighting in themountains against basically infantry. You'll be close, and any motion you make makes it harder for them. Granted, that's not innate to the Ka-50, but if I understand what's been said correctly, lateral traversals are quick and painless with this heli, as opposed to convetional helis. In confined or difficult areas this freedom may well make all the difference in the world - and the extra lift certainly does.

 

Pretty sure I accounted for the increased protection against small arms that speed and agility provides ;)

[GGTharos]

Indeed. I should have read twice. ;)

[VMFA-Blaze]

 

yeah, suppose it's as much about keeping the chaps at Kamov going as anything else. Letting your defense contractors go bankrupt is hardly a sound tactic for maintaining a decent military future . . .

 

I concur... Russia at this point in time is actually becoming a very rich country.. And the reason this is happening is because of Her huge quantities of oil resources and Her extensive spiderweb of pipelines..

 

So it just stands to reason that a build up the military is needed to protect these assets...

 

~S~

 

Blaze

[EvilBivol-1]

I guess one of the big advantages the Mi-28 has is the canon that has a excellent field of fire...

Supposedly, this advantage is somewhat negated by the inaccuracy of fire and recoil problems imposed when the cannon is fired significantly off-boresight. 30mm, after all. Also, the Russians don't seem to mind the hard-mounted gun of the Mi-24P.

 

Regarding the power/maneuverability advantage of the Ka-50, I think it would be a mistake to underestimate its importance. Many Soviet helicopters were lost over Afghanistan due to manuever limitations, especially as experienced in the hot & high conditions of that region. Ironically, one of Mil's arguments against the Ka-50 is that the co-axial rotor design imposes such limitations and endangers the pilot in performing combat maneuvers. The various Ka-50 accidents are provided as evidence. Most pilot accounts I've seen agree that the overall risk of rotor collision on the Ka-50 is no more significant than the danger of a tailboom strike on a conventional design.

[VMFA-Blaze]

the overall risk of rotor collision on the Ka-50 is no more significant than the danger of a tailboom strike on a conventional design.

 

 

Thanks that was really something that I had concerns about...

 

~S~

 

Blaze

[D-Scythe]

Regarding the power/maneuverability advantage of the Ka-50, I think it would be a mistake to underestimate its importance. Many Soviet helicopters were lost over Afghanistan due to manuever limitations, especially as experienced in the hot & high conditions of that region. Ironically, one of Mil's arguments against the Ka-50 is that the co-axial rotor design imposes such limitations and engangers the pilot in performing combat maneuvers. The various Ka-50 accidents are provided as evidence. Most pilot accounts I've seen agree that the overall risk of rotor collision on the Ka-50 is no more significant than the danger of a tailboom strike on a conventional design.

 

The Afghani's were hardly armed with anything sophisticated. The most lethal threat (small arms was arguably the "greatest" threat) was the FIM-92 Stinger missile, and those things are designed to bring down faster flying, fixed-wing birds - it's going to have no problems out-running and out-turning a Ka-50 or an Mi-26.

 

Against tanks and other armored targets, I'd go with the more "advanced" chopper, like the Tiger or Apache (which are no slouches in terms of agility either) or a late model Ka-50/Mi-28. Conventional choppers should have no problem darting from one position to the other before popping up behind a ridge-line and lobbing a couple Hellfires at their targets. A single AH-64D can potentially eradicate an entire tank company in a heart beat with their fire-and-forget AGM-114Ls. In this respect, being more advanced is arguably more useful than being more agile, in almost every case.

 

In lower threat environments, like Afghanistan and Baghdad, the increased speed and agility of the Ka-50 theoretically makes it more survivable. This is more difficult to put into practice, however - it's not like PKs and RPGs trip any of the early warning sensors on-board a chopper, and the pilot cannot dodge an attack if he's oblivious to it. But of course, this doesn't detract from the usefulness of having the extra speed and agility available to the pilot - it presents more tactical options/alternatives to consider, and that is always good.

[VMFA-Blaze]

After reading the above information, I can see that obviously Russia has learned from past mistakes..

 

 

 

~S~

 

 

Blaze

[Anytime]

Please explain :P

 

The Eurocopter would beg to keep up in terms of flight performance. Avionics ... different story.

[EvilBivol-1]

In lower threat environments, like Afghanistan and Baghdad, the increased speed and agility of the Ka-50 theoretically makes it more survivable. This is more difficult to put into practice, however...

Tell that to the hundreds of chopper crews that have crashed because they didn't get quite enough power or because their chopper suddenly wallowed under a change of forces.

 

I think your last line sums it up well. Power and agility are always good for a combat aircraft. In this sense, the Ka-50 is at a definite advantage and the Russians took special note of this due to their experience in Aghanistan. As an overall combat platform though, I agree that it is at a distinct disadvantage as compared to other modern AHs. But that's somewhat unfair, as the Ka-50 was largely frozen in its initial production state and never had the opportunity to develop into its designer's vision. It is that vision which I think is most appreciated by fans of the Ka-50, even if the chopper itself never materialized fully.

[D-Scythe]

Tell that to the hundreds of chopper crews that have crashed because they didn't get quite enough power or because their chopper suddenly wallowed under a change of forces.

 

No, of course. I understand that. However, my whole premise was based on the anti-tank battle - tanks are not exactly suited to mountainous terrain where such conditions (hot/high, updrafts, etc.) are prevalent.

 

But that's somewhat unfair, as the Ka-50 was largely frozen in its initial production state and never had the opportunity to develop into it's designer's vision. It is that vision which I think is most appreciated by fans of the Ka-50, even if the chopper itself never materialized fully.

 

It's not unfair, because I never said that the Ka-50 as a whole was at a disadvantage ;) It certainly has the potential to materialize into a devastating attack helicopter - my main point was that in the context of a heavy SAM threat, anti-tank environment, increased speed/agility is not *that* big of a deal (although it's of course good to have). If you can't decoy/lose that Stinger or SA-19 missile and find some cover, you're screwed - it doesn't matter if you're in a Ka-50 or Chinook. IMO, the AH-64D Longbow fares extremely well in this kind of situation - it simply can direct the greatest amount of missiles onto multiple targets within a very short time frame out of any helicopter, without the need to stick around after weapon release because its weapons are fire and forget.

 

This logic is obviously not going to hold if we consider an entirely different mission (counter-insurgency) with a different array of threats (RPGs and small arms). Then, IMO, Ka-50 is arguably more survivable than the AH-64D is. It all comes down to tactics, and with its greater power and agility, the Ka-50 simply has more things it can physically do to avoid PK and RPG fire.

 

That's my position - I'm not saying that one helicopter is absolutely better than the other.

[EvilBivol-1]

:yes:

[MBot]

D-Scythe pretty much sums it up in my opinion.

 

 

As this question has gone unanswered, how does the Ka-52 compares performance wise to the -50?

 

 

Btw, a pretty good compromise between the AH-64D and the Ka-50 might be the Tiger UH/HAD. Fire-and-forget Trigat ATGMs employed from covered positions trough a mast mounted FLIR, combined with a small and nimble airframe.

[Force_Feedback]

Or an Igla-V ;) <-- HINT!!!

 

The mi-28 seems agile as well, judging by airshow videos, but heck, even the Ch-47 is agile if you judge by watching airshows. I love its 'almost crash' thing, with lots of pitch and yaw, looks really scary.

[GGTharos]

Please explain :P

 

Like all conventional helis, the Eurocopter gives up lifting power to drive the tail rotor (or whatever it is it uses, I forget).

The Ka-50 doesn't give up that power and derives *additional* lifting power from the second main rotor - that means the Eurocopter can't match the Ka-50 for climb, acceleration, or high-altitude performance.

 

On the other hand, as I said - the Eurocopter's Avionics are likely much more advanced.

[RvETito]

Do you think that this gearbox problems of the Mi-28 will be eventually solved ( by installing a better gearbox *duh* ? ) or is it a inherent design flaw ?

 

They should solve it otherwise they will fail the order. From my point of view the dicision of Mil to develop the main gearbox on their own is completely unecessary muscles show off. The Klimov design bureau has traditions in this area for many years moreover the Mil have been working together with them for a long time(Klimov gearboxes are used in Mi-2/8/17/24). The most natural decision would be to subcontract the gearbox contruction to the most experienced organisation around. The main gearbox is the heart of any helicopter and it's not something you could invent for a couple of years while developing a multimilion combat helicopter. Nobody will wait you practicing untill you achieve satisfactory result, you would just get kicked out of the game.

I should also mention that the Klimov have also had problems with the VR-80 gearbox(used in Ka-50/52). Both the 50 and the 28 feature new engine installation separate on the sides of the fuselage unlike the top of fuselage engines mounting in the previous helicopters. This imposes to both of them to have intermediate gearboxes with main GB between the engines, not aft of them. This complicates the transmission quiet a lot and I believe Klimov have menaged to find the right way faster than Mil.

 

However it is still unknown how the VR-80 will handle the VK-2500 engines. If the Russian complete their idea of creating one special ops wing of Ka-50/52 mix they will certainly require installation of the new engine even on the early built a/c. It is interchangeable with the TV3-117VMA and the bigger power will definetely require redesign of the transmission.

 

Also while putting aside the superior maneuverability of the Ka-50, is the Mi-28 itself a maneuverable helo compared to other heavy AHs ?

 

The Mi-28N is also quiet maneuverable, I've seen it on the web doing loops and rolls. I won't discuss the applicability of these in combat...:)

 

The Ka-52 sound a lot smarter. How is the flight performance of the -52 compared to the -50?

 

I'm not aware whether their flight performance differ but IMO it should be negligeable. Except for the nose and the cockpit they are absolutely identical- same rotor system, same engines and trasnmission, a/c systems etc. The Ka-52 is a little bit heavier and this is the only factor that actualy matters when comparing them. So I think only an experienced pilot that has flown both could give the most accurate answer.

 

I guess one of the big advantages the Mi-28 has is the canon that has a excellent field of fire and the fact that one crew member can solely concentrate on spotting and shooting. This might make up for a lot of missing maneuverability when engaging targets in mountainous terrain.

 

The excellent field of fire of the Mi-28N brings twice inacurate gunnery. Both the 28 and the 50 use the same 2A42 30mm cannon used also in the BMP-3. It is twice heavier than usual aircraft guns but it's also twice powerful. Kamov have decided to install it on hydraulic dampers close to the helicopter's center of gravity thus decreasing the shock influence of the gunfire over the helicopter. In the 28 it is installed below the nose and it produces big momentums especialy in yaw if fired 3-9 o'clock. During the first competition trials between the two helicopters in the early '90s the Ka-50 has shown twice accurate gunnery in the same conditions. The great yaw maneuverability of the helicopter and the ability to quickly point the nose in the desired direction combined with the better balistic characteristics of the gun(installed close to the CG) have actualy not only neutralized the advantage of the 220 degress FOV of the Mi-28's gun but have achieved better results.

[RvETito]

All this talk about agility...in the end, does it really matter? You're in a helicopter for crying out loud - an SA-18 isn't going to care if you're an Mi-28N or Ka-50. While the extra speed/manueverability is good for dodging RPGs and small arms, you're not going to be killing tanks by dancing around in your Kamov at 300 kmph - ideally, you should be popping up from behind a ridgeline, shoot your missiles, then getting the hell out of there.

 

Actualy yes- it matters. By agility in mountain terrain is meant ability to climb fast on the slopes and hide behind the hill. All helicopers can descend faster (bloody gravity :D) but none can climb as a Kamov can. The Ka-50s in Chechnya have been flown by former Mi-24 pilots and they report that they feel much more confident going inside deep valeys with the Ka-50 and do things that in single rotor helo they wouldn't dare. Just pull on the collective and the damn thing will climb like an airplane- 30 m/s sustained rate of climb in turbolent atmosphere.

 

To fight tanks on flat area all you need is the proper avionics and ATGM. But this won't be enough when you fly in the mountain and you face a 1000m high peak for example and the only way out passes on the top of it. That's where the coxial rotor will save your life. At least this is the major conclusions the russian have made during those trials- the Ka-50 has no match in the Caucasus area. But it needs assistance when it comes to target search. In Chechnya this role has been performed by modified Ka-29, in future if the special ops conception sees light this should be carried out by the wing leader Ka-52 serving as a mini AWACS for the 3-4 Ka-50 in the wing. For large and intensive antitank combat the main helo of the russians will be the Mi-28N- it has better avionics and night capabilities.

[VMFA-Blaze]

TITO: that was very informative, thanks....

 

~S~

 

Blaze

[Anytime]

and www.allofmp3.com :)

 

I concur... Russia at this point in time is actually becoming a very rich country.. And the reason this is happening is because of Her huge quantities of oil resources and Her extensive spiderweb of pipelines..

 

So it just stands to reason that a build up the military is needed to protect these assets...

 

~S~

 

Blaze

[Anytime]

Ah misread your post, Tiger is also about half the weight of the KA50.

 

Like all conventional helis, the Eurocopter gives up lifting power to drive the tail rotor (or whatever it is it uses, I forget).

The Ka-50 doesn't give up that power and derives *additional* lifting power from the second main rotor - that means the Eurocopter can't match the Ka-50 for climb, acceleration, or high-altitude performance.

 

On the other hand, as I said - the Eurocopter's Avionics are likely much more advanced.

[4c Hajduk Veljko]

Well said AirTito. Thanks.