Jump to content

Mi-28 vs. Ka-50 which is the better attack helicopter?


Recommended Posts

Bucic, a small note regarding passive-seeker MANPADs: they can be detected by modern systems. I don't know for sure whether there are any attack helicopters that carry those systems operationally right now

 

I remember reading in one of the recent Apache books (one of Ed Macy's or Apache Dawn) that its missile warning system did detect manpad launches on several occasions, and automatically launched counter measures. Though the pilot never saw any missiles, so might have been a false warning.

 

In any case, a missile warning system which detects IR missiles is obviously already operational on british Apaches. Even if it may detect too much at times :) I remember also that the author mentioned that they disabled automatic flares over the airbase. Didn't want to drop hot flare down on the base :)

 

The are also working on systems which can detect and locate AA-fire. See:

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2010/03/military-helicopters-may-get-gunshot-location-system/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Looks similar to a sniper-detection system they've been working on for ground forces.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding MANPADS I think it is also worth to mention that most attack helicopters are equped with IR jammers for decades.

Certainly not on Ka-50. As for Mi-24 and 28 I don't know. Not much of an expert. What's interesting is that the typical location of such jammer (just behind rotor) renders the whole lower part of rear hemisphere a dead zone for such system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure actually, Bucic. I've seen pictures of Ka-50 cockpits with gear that apparently is secret, could be something like that tacked on. Who knows. But yeah, the Ka-50 isn't exactly the most up-to-date system with only a handful built and development halted in favor of the 52 and 28. There's way too many possible candidate systems on something where the only information is that it's secret to do more than wishful thinking. :P

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Daniel "EtherealN" Agorander | Даниэль "эфирныйн" Агорандер

Intel i7 2600K @ 4.4GHz, ASUS Sabertooth P67, 8GB Corsair Vengeance @ 1600MHz, ASUS GTX 560Ti DirectCU II 1GB, Samsung 830series 512GB SSD, Corsair AX850w, two BENQ screens and TM HOTAS Warthog

DCS: A-10C Warthog FAQ | DCS: P-51D FAQ | Remember to read the Forum Rules |

|
| Life of a Game Tester
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly not on Ka-50. As for Mi-24 and 28 I don't know. Not much of an expert. What's interesting is that the typical location of such jammer (just behind rotor) renders the whole lower part of rear hemisphere a dead zone for such system.

 

It is true, the Ka-50 doesn't havean IR jammer (who wonders about a helicopter without RWR ;) ). I am not sure about the Ka-52 and Mi-28. Quite curious.

But helicopters like the Mi-24, Mi-8, AH-1, AH-64, UH-60, OH-58 have them. The first ALQ-144 models appeared 1980.

 

The position behind the rotor makes sense if you expect to be shot from a level attitude and not from below. Logical to me, as you should fly at low level in theaters with a MANPADS threat.

 

 

Edit:

Interesting to know fact. AH-64A did not carry flares because it was thought that the helicopters low IR signature combined with the ALQ-144 IR jammer would provide sufficient protection against IR missiles.


Edited by MBot
Link to comment
Share on other sites

British Apaches carry sensors to detect the exhaust plume of a missile launch as part of HIDAS - on detection it can automatically launch flares and advise escape flight path. So says Ed Macy at least. This system is currently fielded. As mentioned, the system can generate false warnings of course, nice for the pilots heart rate/adrenalin levels.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Less maneuverable' is really meaningless to say here - the difference, if any, should be rather small.

Yes because the power to weight ratio should be the same,but the ka 50 has the advantage of the tail rotor absence and a higher rotors,then a greater momentum of control on the pitch axis.

So i think in certain situations the more maneuverability of the ka 50 should become evident,like in mountainous environment but it's just my opinion,correct me if i'm wrong

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes because the power to weight ratio should be the same,but the ka 50 has the advantage of the tail rotor absence and a higher rotors,then a greater momentum of control on the pitch axis.

So i think in certain situations the more maneuverability of the ka 50 should become evident,like in mountainous environment but it's just my opinion,correct me if i'm wrong

 

IIRC the Mi-28 in service has more powerful engines than the current Ka-50.

 

Edit: At least according to Wikipedia, i was wrong on this.


Edited by sobek

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the future, wouldn't attack helicopters and transport helicopters merge? As long as the need for infantry remains, they often require extraction. And as technological progress continues, we'll find better and more interesting ways of arming our transport choppers.

 

Perhaps it'll get to the point that you have troop movement backed up by a multi-role helicopter hovering behind them?

 

It'll be interesting to see if they can develop effective cloaking systems too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, they would not merge. Notice how not this has not happened and does not seem to be happening with the exception of certain specific aircraft of the UH-60 family used for special ops, and of course the Mi-24.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Isn't that just because of technological constraints? Or is some other factor involved?

 

There is a tradeoff involved.

 

Transport helos need to provide a certain space. Attack helos need to be as small as possible to present as little a target as possible.

 

Transport helos sacrifice their load weight for troops (at least a part). Attack helos have all power available to carry heavy armor, weapons and sensors.

 

The list goes on ...

Good, fast, cheap. Choose any two.

Come let's eat grandpa!

Use punctuation, save lives!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the future, wouldn't attack helicopters and transport helicopters merge? As long as the need for infantry remains, they often require extraction. And as technological progress continues, we'll find better and more interesting ways of arming our transport choppers.

 

Perhaps it'll get to the point that you have troop movement backed up by a multi-role helicopter hovering behind them?

 

It'll be interesting to see if they can develop effective cloaking systems too.

 

nope thats called an MI-24 HIND

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If transport and attack helicopters were to merge, the successor to the Mi-24 certainly wouldn't be the Mi-28.

 

This is a situation where having two separate, but extremely effective machines is better than having two identical-but-mediocre ones. For most missions involving troop transport, an attack helicopter isn't needed. These are typically just insertions and extractions that are miles away from any action. For insertions/extractions that are hot, the side-mounted .50/GPMGs serve very well. Sure, you could go the Mi-24 route and give the helicopter full attack capability, but you would limit its range, and increase detectability (Size of course, but then larger engines are needed to carry the extra weight meaning less fuel efficiency, larger heat and radar signature, noise, you know). Pricing is also an issue. The radar and sensor equipment onboard a modern attack helicopter is very expensive because of its complexity. Militaries can't afford to spend that much on every single transport helicopter nowadays. The Mi-24 got away with it, but keep in mind the relative simplicity. There is a far greater demand for transport helicopters than for attack helicopters, and having one expensive, small, quick attack heli for every ten larger, slower, transport helis is much more efficient.

 

I'm not hatin' on the Mi-24. I don't know a whole lot about it, and feel free to call me out on anything I say if you know confidently otherwise. The Mi-24 pulled off the combo very well, but it doesn't apply anymore these days. Modern equipment is much more expensive and elaborate even if you include inflation.


Edited by Waldo_II
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...