what kind of conflict for KA-50

quo vadis · November 9, 2007

After some discussions on this forum it is still not clear to me for what kind of conflict the KA-50 is intended. From what I understand so far:

On one side: The KA-50 has no Radar Warning, because it is intended for a 'low intensity' war where there are no radar threats or all radar threats are eliminated.

But the weapons of a KA-50 suggest otherwise. Vikhr are intended for armoured targets (like tanks ?) whom I expect to have some air protection ?!

The gun is very powerful and has 'fixed' mounted for shooting targets at medium to long range. whereas a rotating turret seems much more logical if you're fighting infantry etc.:helpsmilie:

Any suggestions ?

EvilBivol-1 · November 9, 2007

The Ka-50 was designed during the Cold War as the USSR's next generation attack helicopter. As such, its mission would be primarily anti-armor and combat air support for ground operations.

Since the Cold War is over, low intensity conflicts and special operations have become the historic realities determining the type of conflicts in which the Ka-50 would most likely participate.

Similarly, it is historic realities that explain the lack of a RWR and IR-targeting equipment. It is likely that both of these improvements and others would have found their way into service, had the Ka-50 remained a viable candidate for mass production for the Soviet or Russian military, but that's not what happened.

Sundowner.pl · November 9, 2007

This is a very good question. But the gun is not really meant to be an anti-infantry - for that you have the S-8 rockets, not against vehicles, for those the Vikhr is better (especially while it's cheap). The gun is also very high recoil one, and badly positioned. When firing ahead causing momentum in 2 axes (when all chin mounted cause only in one) making the bursts go all over the place.

The fact is... this helicopter have no right to exist. Every task it can do, can be done better or cheaper by its Mil sisters - the Mi-35 and Mi-28. the only plus is the better efficiency in using engines power for producing lift... but put better engines on the Mils, and you have the same thing.

EvilBivol-1 · November 9, 2007

When firing ahead causing momentum in 2 axes (when all chin mounted cause only in one)...

Even when firing off center?

The fact is... this helicopter have no right to exist.

This helicopter's right to exist is that it is highly innovative and ahead of its time. Unfortunately, it hasn't had and probably won't have the chance to mature to its full potential, but its designers could not forsee that in the early 80s. They were pushing the limits of army aviation.

Malleus · November 9, 2007

This helicopter's right to exist is that it is highly innovative and ahead of its time.

Why exactly?

Mugatu · November 9, 2007

Ouch don't hold back! :)

This is a very good question. But the gun is not really meant to be an anti-infantry - for that you have the S-8 rockets, not against vehicles, for those the Vikhr is better (especially while it's cheap). The gun is also very high recoil one, and badly positioned. When firing ahead causing momentum in 2 axes (when all chin mounted cause only in one) making the bursts go all over the place.

The fact is... this helicopter have no right to exist. Every task it can do, can be done better or cheaper by its Mil sisters - the Mi-35 and Mi-28. the only plus is the better efficiency in using engines power for producing lift... but put better engines on the Mils, and you have the same thing.

EvilBivol-1 · November 9, 2007

Why exactly?

Because it is a single-seater. Because it has an ejection seat. Because it features advanced flight control and navigation systems that can effectively fly the chopper the entire route and back to base automatically. Because it can operate in "wolfpacks" with a secure datalink. Because it is a co-axial attack helicopter.

Compare that with the Mi-28, whose claim to fame among many Russians is to be known as the "not-quite-Apache". :) Under the cirumstances though, the "not-quite-Apache" is a better choice for the military than the not-fully-realized Ka-50 - I agree.

Sundowner.pl · November 9, 2007

Even when firing off center?

I wrote: "When firing ahead"... and actually thats the only way that gun fires anyway, 30* to the right is not much.

This helicopter's right to exist is that it is highly innovative and ahead of its time. Unfortunately, it hasn't had and probably won't have the chance to mature to its full potential, but its designers could not forsee that in the early 80s. They were pushing the limits of army aviation.

Innovative ? Sorry I don't think so. Sikorsky S-69 was innovative, RAH-66 was innovative... and both have been ahead of its time. Ka-50 is just parts from few machines put together - an armored personal carrier, a strike aircraft, and navy helicopter. The only innovative thing there can be found is the 'ejection' seat. But that already was developed once for Cobra, and a capsule type egress system was once designed for H-21 Shawnee (long, long time ago), it was never fielded because it wasn't improving survivability, only causing additional maintnance costs.

Have to note here, that K-37 didn't helped Boris Vorobyov, and Yeugeny Laryushin also didn't had much luck, although that seat was not mounted at the time of his tragic flight. Actually the K-37 seat have way to long response time to be useful in something that can change its attitude in a fraction of a second.

Sorry, but that's how I see it.

quo vadis · November 9, 2007

The fact is... this helicopter have no right to exist.

Isn't that true for all pieces of military equipment ?! Make love not war :smilewink:

Thanks all for clarifying. So it's a high intensity war type of weapon, stuck in time....

Eagle Driver · November 9, 2007

Built for high-intensity but stuck in low-intensity situations... sounds like the US military to me. It's hard to built for a low-intensity conflict, I seem to recall a quote from somewhere saying that you cannot win a gerurilla conflict. Strange to think that the weaker the enemy, the harder the time a large military seems to have with it. Take Iraq for example, in 1991 it was almost easy to take out one of the largets armies in the world. Now the new one, the enemy is much less powerful yet much more difficult. Ka-50 as-is is certainly a strange combination.

Dudikoff · November 9, 2007

Innovative ? Sorry I don't think so. Sikorsky S-69 was innovative, RAH-66 was innovative... and both have been ahead of its time. Ka-50 is just parts from few machines put together

Well, the concept of single pilot/weapons operator was not used before. I think that alone qualifies it as innovative. The co-axial rotor used on an attack helicopter? That's another innovation. Ejection seat is also an innovation because it hasn't been operationally used before.

Have to note here, that K-37 didn't helped Boris Vorobyov, and Yeugeny Laryushin also didn't had much luck, although that seat was not mounted at the time of his tragic flight. Actually the K-37 seat have way to long response time to be useful in something that can change its attitude in a fraction of a second.

This is just plain bashing which doesn't make sense. It's a good concept and if it may not work in some situations, it sure would in others saving pilot's lives. Isn't that enough of a reason to put it there?

Yellonet · November 9, 2007

The gun is also very high recoil one, and badly positioned.

It's in the best place for this chopper. The gun has way better accuracy than turret guns, possibly twice as good as the Mi-28 which has the same gun, and the weight is over the center of the airframe, no doubt that the recoil is handed better this way than if the gun were positioned under the nose.

Yellonet · November 9, 2007

Well, the concept of single pilot/weapons operator was not used before. I think that alone qualifies it as innovative. The co-axial rotor used on an attack helicopter? That's another innovation. Ejection seat is also an innovation because it hasn't been operationally used before.

This is just plain bashing which doesn't make sense. It's a good concept and if it may not work in some situations, it sure would in others saving pilot's lives. Isn't that enough of a reason to put it there?

Sundowner just don't like the Ka-50 it seems, too bad for him as that's the only thing flyable in DCS for a good while.

Anyways, most people would probably agree that the Ka-50 is an innovative helicopter, it is an innovation per definition - only if it's "just" by combining different technolgies in a new way - no matter what someone on a game forum may think.

Sundowner.pl · November 9, 2007

Well, the concept of single pilot/weapons operator was not used before. I think that alone qualifies it as innovative. The co-axial rotor used on an attack helicopter? That's another innovation. Ejection seat is also an innovation because it hasn't been operationally used before.

Single pilot concept was tested by Sikorsky in early 80's on S-76 - project Shadow, even though it was more advanced than Ka-50 (full glass cockpit, helmet mounted displays, full FBW controls, etc.) it didn't proved useful.

This is just plain bashing which doesn't make sense. It's a good concept and if it may not work in some situations, it sure would in others saving pilot's lives. Isn't that enough of a reason to put it there?

The problem is, because of the design of the whole K-37 system, it can be useful actually only in situation where you lost both engines, still have full control over the aircraft, but have to place to land in safe autorotation. If you lost control over the aircraft - it is not safe to use the seat. that's why a similiar system was anly designed for Cobra attack helicopter - it based on 'Stanley YANKEE' extraction system, used in A-1 Skyrider, that have the same work principle as the designed many decades later - K-37. But the use envelope was very narrow, and added additional weight, and lowered crew protection (no place for armor), and raised maintenance costs and hours. If its so great, why no one other than Russia bought Ka-50 family helicopter yet ? There were many occasions you know.

You know what would be innovative ? A tiltrotor attack aircraft - no one made something like that yet - every other thing was already tested.

MBot · November 9, 2007

The concept of a single seater attack helicopter might be inovative (well not exactly inovative, but at least a venture) but one has to wonder if it realy works.

Also I wonder what exactly the advantages of a single seat design are. One should think that it leads to a lighter aircraft, but actualy the Ka-50 is heavier than the Apache. So what is all the buzz about a single seat attack helicopter?

Sundowner.pl · November 9, 2007

It's in the best place for this chopper. The gun has way better accuracy than turret guns, possibly twice as good as the Mi-28 which has the same gun, and the weight is over the center of the airframe, no doubt that the recoil is handed better this way than if the gun were positioned under the nose.

The first bullet will be more accurate, yes. but not the whole burst. In chin mounted cannon, the only force will make the nose go down (unless its a low recoil system like the M230 AWS - this won't move helicopter a bit). But the way Ka-50 have its mounted will make it go down and to the right, so I'm not buying that the Hokum cannon is more accurate then Mi-28. If so - the Havok turret is messed up, not its location. The other thing is - because of the nose wheel, there is no other place that gun can go on that helicopter anyway.

Sundowner just don't like the Ka-50 it seems, too bad for him as that's the only thing flyable in DCS for a good while.

Do I "don't like" it ? Not really, I have no point in that. It's not that it threats my country or something, I just see it as unpractical on today's battlefield. Especially looking on the other constructions - the Roivalk, Mongoose, Tiger, Apache, Viper (or whatever the AH-1Z will be called), Mi-35, Mi-28, etc.

There were literally billions of whatever currency you want spend, by every country that produce attack helicopters, and no one came to the same conclusions the Kamov did, some were there, even more advanced - like Sikorsky, but scraped that way as... unpractical.

Ka-50 for me is not 'bad', 'good' or 'innovative', it's just diferent, when DCS:BS will come, I'll fly that, but as soon I get my hands on the Apache, I will not touch it again.

Yellonet · November 9, 2007

Single pilot concept was tested by Sikorsky in early 80's on S-76 - project Shadow, even though it was more advanced than Ka-50 (full glass cockpit, helmet mounted displays, full FBW controls, etc.) it didn't proved useful.

The problem is, because of the design of the whole K-37 system, it can be useful actually only in situation where you lost both engines, still have full control over the aircraft, but have to place to land in safe autorotation. If you lost control over the aircraft - it is not safe to use the seat. that's why a similiar system was anly designed for Cobra attack helicopter - it based on 'Stanley YANKEE' extraction system, used in A-1 Skyrider, that have the same work principle as the designed many decades later - K-37. But the use envelope was very narrow, and added additional weight, and lowered crew protection (no place for armor), and raised maintenance costs and hours. If its so great, why no one other than Russia bought Ka-50 family helicopter yet ? There were many occasions you know.

You know what would be innovative ? A tiltrotor attack aircraft - no one made something like that yet - every other thing was already tested.

So because it can sometime be unsafe to use the ejection seat it shouldn't be there at all?

I for one would like the choice to eject or not, it's likely not always preferable to crash into the ground. Furthermore, the Ka-50 has quite a lot of armor, much more so than most other helos. I'd for one would rather be in a Ka-50 than most other helos when being shot at... the fact that an ejection seat didn't work well in another completely different helo is not an argument in the discussion about Ka-50.

Yellonet · November 9, 2007

The concept of a single seater attack helicopter might be inovative (well not exactly inovative, but at least a venture) but one has to wonder if it realy works.

Also I wonder what exactly the advantages of a single seat design are. One should think that it leads to a lighter aircraft, but actualy the Ka-50 is heavier than the Apache. So what is all the buzz about a single seat attack helicopter?

"To reduce the helicopter weight hence improve its flying performance its designers proposed a truly revolutionary solution: the operator-navigator was excluded from the helicopter crew along with the systems ensuring his protection and survivability. The concept of a single-seat helicopter was corroborated by the experience of operating tactical attack planes and fighter bombers in which the pilot successfully combines his direct functions with those of the navigator.

Essentially, the concept of a single-seat helicopter was substantiated as follows. A helicopter needs to fly at extremely low altitudes (5 - 50 m) to approach the target area with the minimum risk of being hit by the enemy air defence capabilities. The Mi-24 experience proves that at the most critical stage of the flight the pilot is steering the helicopter all alone because the operator- navigator is unable to perform his duties at low altitudes. Upon his approach of the target area, the pilot has to climb to the altitude from 35 m to 70 m to engage targets along a 4-kilometre line of attack over plain terrain and from 100 m to 245 m under mountainous conditions. At such altitudes the pilot is unable to assist the operator-navigator in target identification unless he is equipped with an independent sighting and surveillance system.

Kamov designers were proceeding from the premise that under the conditions when piloting, target detection and tracking are automated the pilot can combine his and the navigator's duties without any extreme psychological or physical exertions. By the end of 70s the level of Soviet industry was sufficiently high for developing automated systems of this kind. The Ka-25 and Ka-27 already carried the equipment enabling them to perform automatic search of submarines and supporting their navigation- al and piloting modes. In addition, this equipment ensured helicopters' teamwork, automated data exchange, etc. Finally, the reduction of the helicopter crew was expected not only to bring down the helicopter weight but also lessen the pilot training costs, reduce combat losses, therefore considerably curtail the funds required to maintain the army aviation."

Sundowner.pl · November 9, 2007

The problem is not that kind of ejection system don't work on other helicopters... it actually don't work at all :smilewink:

Ok, here, how the Stanley system works - when you pull the handle, obstacles are cleared (in A-1 canopy is blown away, in Ka-50, the bolts in rotors are blown, and the top... plate of cockpit is open). Than a rocket is fired upward, connected with the seat by rope-like straps, when those are fully extended, the rocket fires, and pulls pilot out of the cockpit, when cleared it pull out the parachute and disconnect.

The problem with this system is - it works like an ejection seat from the 50's. Today real Ejection seats reposition themself in flight, so the parachute can inflate in a safe attitude. The Stanley system don't do that, it just pull you out of the cockpit, and if top of your aircraft was to the side, you have very high chances of strangling into parachute cords, or make the parachute fold. And when you don't have much altitude (probably at least 100m), it wont inflate at all.

This system works to slow, and is unsafe in any attitude then straight level flight, that's why it wasn't used since 1960's.

Yellonet · November 9, 2007

The problem is not that kind of ejection system don't work on other helicopters... it actually don't work at all :smilewink:

Ok, here, how the Stanley system works - when you pull the handle, obstacles are cleared (in A-1 canopy is blown away, in Ka-50, the bolts in rotors are blown, and the top... plate of cockpit is open). Than a rocket is fired upward, connected with the seat by rope-like straps, when those are fully extended, the rocket fires, and pulls pilot out of the cockpit, when cleared it pull out the parachute and disconnect.

The problem with this system is - it works like an ejection seat from the 50's. Today real Ejection seats reposition themself in flight, so the parachute can inflate in a safe attitude. The Stanley system don't do that, it just pull you out of the cockpit, and if top of your aircraft was to the side, you have very high chances of strangling into parachute cords, or make the parachute fold. And when you don't have much altitude (probably at least 100m), it wont inflate at all.

This system works to slow, and is unsafe in any attitude then straight level flight, that's why it wasn't used since 1960's.

So what you're saying is that the info on the Ka-50 ejection seat being a 0-0 system is a lie?

Sundowner.pl · November 9, 2007

No it's not. It can be used with 0 speed and 0 altitude. But only if your seat is really pointing up.

MBot · November 9, 2007

"To reduce the helicopter weight hence improve its flying performance its designers proposed a truly revolutionary solution: the operator-navigator was excluded from the helicopter crew along with the systems ensuring his protection and survivability. The concept of a single-seat helicopter was corroborated by the experience of operating tactical attack planes and fighter bombers in which the pilot successfully combines his direct functions with those of the navigator.
...

Interesting read. But then one has to wonder why the Ka-50 turned out so heavy. The Ka-50 is a lot heavier than the Tiger, heavier than the Apache and actually almost as heavy as the Mi-28.

Yellonet · November 9, 2007

Interesting read. But then one has to wonder why the Ka-50 turned out so heavy. The Ka-50 is a lot heavier than the Tiger, heavier than the Apache and actually almost as heavy as the Mi-28.

That's likely due to the big gun and the added armor.

Sign In

what kind of conflict for KA-50

Recommended Posts

quo vadis

EvilBivol-1

Sundowner.pl

EvilBivol-1

Malleus

Mugatu

EvilBivol-1

Sundowner.pl

quo vadis

Eagle Driver

Dudikoff

Yellonet

Yellonet

Sundowner.pl

MBot

Sundowner.pl

Yellonet

Yellonet

Sundowner.pl

Yellonet

Sundowner.pl

MBot

Yellonet

RvETito

Malleus

Recently Browsing 0 members