PDA

View Full Version : Kamov Ka-50 "Black Shark"???



pinetreescanada
02 Nov 04,, 04:02
I've seen on TV that this helicopter was developed by the former Soviet Union and was unknown to the world until the USSR's collapse. It is described as follow:
"2 sets of rotating blades on a single column spinning opposite directions which creates more stability of the helicopter due to the absence of a tail rotor"
Why hasn't any other countries or organization developed this technology?

ajaybhutani
04 Nov 04,, 19:55
i simple guess .. it will involve a lot of investment in terms of money and time to develop this technology (as u need to start from scratch) and nobody has so much money and time.Furthermore if u ahve so much money i guess its better to try investing in robotic/unmanned attack helicopters/drones/fighters as they will be the stuff for the future.

The Chap
05 Nov 04,, 05:22
I've seen on TV that this helicopter was developed by the former Soviet Union and was unknown to the world until the USSR's collapse. It is described as follow:
"2 sets of rotating blades on a single column spinning opposite directions which creates more stability of the helicopter due to the absence of a tail rotor"
Why hasn't any other countries or organization developed this technology?

The US did in slightly different concept. Where as the Soviet jobs have centrifugally stiffened blades, the US took the research route of ABC - Advancing Blade Concept in which the blades are inherrently stiff and can thus the two counert rotating rotors be placed very close together which has all sorts of advantages. Instead of pursuing this (as part of the LHX program leading to the abortive Comanche) they went with NOTAR which one sees in service today in civilian models by Bell. Hope this is of use. :)

Injecteer
05 Nov 04,, 10:19
Furthermore if u ahve so much money i guess its better to try investing in robotic/unmanned attack helicopters/drones/fighters as they will be the stuff for the future.

irrelevant! :rolleyes:

the robotic stuff has nothin' 2 do with the blades scheme. U can build a robot with a "standard" main-tail rotors as well as with co-axed blades.

I'd say here, that in US and Europe the development of helos followed Sikorski's path with the only deviation in the Chinook heli.

Actually, the co-axed scheme is Kamov's Design Buerau "trademark" :cool: , as all helos of this CB are following this scheme. That means, they're the most experienced in this area, so why not build an attack helo? :biggrin:

pinetreescanada
07 Nov 04,, 02:53
Doesn't anyone want such a steady and manuverable helicopter though? Even if it means money?

Injecteer
08 Nov 04,, 10:00
Doesn't anyone want such a steady and manuverable helicopter though? Even if it means money?

does everibody has a ****-load of money to develop such a helo within a short time (apart from russians of course)? I'm pretty sure, that the development program will cost alot more money, then the Comanche project, as the development risks are much higher.

pinetreescanada
09 Nov 04,, 05:18
lol

Garry
02 Oct 05,, 21:19
The US did in slightly different concept. Where as the Soviet jobs have centrifugally stiffened blades, the US took the research route of ABC - Advancing Blade Concept in which the blades are inherrently stiff and can thus the two counert rotating rotors be placed very close together which has all sorts of advantages. Instead of pursuing this (as part of the LHX program leading to the abortive Comanche) they went with NOTAR which one sees in service today in civilian models by Bell. Hope this is of use. :)

The whole idea of two blades is in contra-rotation which gives you
1) higher efficiency in terms of trust with same diameter, number of blades and rotations per second
2) help you to get rid of tail rotor and all transmission related to that - great economy of weight and fuel!

- the idea of having two rotors close to each other gives no efficiency gain..... and it is VERY dangerous as Chinooks have proved.....

Garry
02 Oct 05,, 21:21
does everibody has a ****-load of money to develop such a helo within a short time (apart from russians of course)? I'm pretty sure, that the development program will cost alot more money, then the Comanche project, as the development risks are much higher.

Turks are interested in getting Ka-50.... this would mean that Turks would get the license to produce those for themselves and with certain royalty payments even for other NATO states...... The tender has re-started in September 2005 and results would be in mid-2006

canoe
04 Oct 05,, 07:30
The whole idea of two blades is in contra-rotation which gives you
1) higher efficiency in terms of trust with same diameter, number of blades and rotations per second
2) help you to get rid of tail rotor and all transmission related to that - great economy of weight and fuel!

- the idea of having two rotors close to each other gives no efficiency gain..... and it is VERY dangerous as Chinooks have proved.....

I think these things are as likely to be as dangerous as the chinooks. Both aircraft require both rotors to be fully functional to safely operate. Although granted the engines on a chinook are much more complex.

From what I understand from having talked to a pilot a chopper can be safely landed in the event of an engine failure, the rotor blades will keep spinning and slow its rate of decent. I'm not sure how this would work for a duel rotor configuration given you'll not only lose lift but also all directional control. Also damage to just one of the rotors while in powered flightly would probably result in the aircraft going into an uncontolled spin. This would be similar to what happens to regular choppers when their tail rotor is disabled in flight.

All that said I like innovation and I think its a good design overall, the major factor I think that would really give it better chance of selling to a larger pool of countries would be if the Russians designed it to be compatible with NATO/U.S weapons, specificly the hellfires.

Ray
04 Oct 05,, 08:06
Helicopters, in case of rotor failure, auto rotates.

During training auto rotation is practiced.

I was being flown and there was a sort of "flame out" and they brought the helicopter down by auto rotation. Nothing happened, though I thought we were done for.

I have done extensive helicopter flying (that is as a passenger) and I, for one, don't find it dangerous.

Of course if the rotors fly off, then you fly up ..........................and shake hands with God. So is my belief.

Garry
04 Oct 05,, 10:52
I think these things are as likely to be as dangerous as the chinooks. Both aircraft require both rotors to be fully functional to safely operate. Although granted the engines on a chinook are much more complex.

From what I understand from having talked to a pilot a chopper can be safely landed in the event of an engine failure, the rotor blades will keep spinning and slow its rate of decent. I'm not sure how this would work for a duel rotor configuration given you'll not only lose lift but also all directional control. Also damage to just one of the rotors while in powered flightly would probably result in the aircraft going into an uncontolled spin. This would be similar to what happens to regular choppers when their tail rotor is disabled in flight.

All that said I like innovation and I think its a good design overall, the major factor I think that would really give it better chance of selling to a larger pool of countries would be if the Russians designed it to be compatible with NATO/U.S weapons, specificly the hellfires.

Kamov helicopters do land with autorotation, though it is less controlable than single blade helicopter on low speed autorotation, however it has singificant advantage in slower decending with engine off than a single blade helo. In general if your engine is off and you had low speed it does not matter - one blade or co-axial your are in big trouble.........

The problem with autorotation for co-axial was solved around 50 years ago and Kamov had its own solution since Ka-25 was out. Ka-52 does not have this problem

you may read some interesting things about comparisons of single blade vs co-axial systems here
http://www.kamov.ru/market/news/petr11.htm
http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/atrs.arc.nasa.gov/975555_coleman/975555_coleman.pdf

I did not understood most of the things there except for one - co-axial has around 30% efficiency gain to a single blade.....

ps. Can Chinooks autorotate?

Sanctified
09 Oct 05,, 03:05
This bird is the next installment of the flight and air-traffic control simulator LOMAC, check out these screenshots:
http://www.lockon.ru/index.php?end_pos=950&scr=default&lang=en

Garry
09 Oct 05,, 12:15
just had a coffee with a guy who was pilotting Ka-50. He was admiring the bird and in his view it is a revolutionary.


However he had to admit one strong problem with it...... if you dive then geting out of diving at maximum speed make you running solid risk of your rotors overlapping => your are dead as not enough time to eject. He said that this requires a specific skills to get out of diving at high speed in secure mode.... hence pilot training must be very high or he better not to dive on the bird.

In all other aspects he told that Ka-50 is capable to take down ANY helicopter at WVR and even BVR if enemy positioning data is supplied from ground or air.... like for example he said if one Ka-50 has run out of R-73M missiles but knows that there is another Ka-50 around 20-30 km away with R-73 it may supply data to another one and they both would hit enemy's CAS or helicopter using one missile. For the second one it would be purelly BVR kill.....

He told that Ka-50 is really made to kill currently used subsonic CAS including A-10. Besides missiles Ka-50 may turn 180 degrees in 3 seconds on full speed and much faster on lower speed..... nobody can come to it from tail. So in dog fight Ka-50 can shoot down anything subsonic.

canoe
09 Oct 05,, 15:30
just had a coffee with a guy who was pilotting Ka-50. He was admiring the bird and in his view it is a revolutionary.


However he had to admit one strong problem with it...... if you dive then geting out of diving at maximum speed make you running solid risk of your rotors overlapping => your are dead as not enough time to eject. He said that this requires a specific skills to get out of diving at high speed in secure mode.... hence pilot training must be very high or he better not to dive on the bird.

In all other aspects he told that Ka-50 is capable to take down ANY helicopter at WVR and even BVR if enemy positioning data is supplied from ground or air.... like for example he said if one Ka-50 has run out of R-73M missiles but knows that there is another Ka-50 around 20-30 km away with R-73 it may supply data to another one and they both would hit enemy's CAS or helicopter using one missile. For the second one it would be purelly BVR kill.....

He told that Ka-50 is really made to kill currently used subsonic CAS including A-10. Besides missiles Ka-50 may turn 180 degrees in 3 seconds on full speed and much faster on lower speed..... nobody can come to it from tail. So in dog fight Ka-50 can shoot down anything subsonic.

Not doubting its a good bird, but against an A-10 I'd still bet on the A-10, it has proven itself one tough SOB and the R-73M only has a 7.4kg HE warhead. Theres a report from Iraq of A-10's getting hit by multiple rpgs, anti-aircraft cannon fire and large amount of small arms fire and still returning to base dispite having an engine shot out and disabled and 1/3rd of one of its wings blown off and countless bullet holes throughout the entire body of the aircraft.

If both aircraft were carrying A2A weapons I'd bet on the A-10 simply because the Ka-50 probably wouldn't be carrying enough armament to actually down it. Against another chopper I'd give the nod to the Ka-50 mind you.

Battle damage pics are at the bottom of the page.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-10-pics.htm

Garry
09 Oct 05,, 17:53
Not doubting its a good bird, but against an A-10 I'd still bet on the A-10, it has proven itself one tough SOB and the R-73M only has a 7.4kg HE warhead. Theres a report from Iraq of A-10's getting hit by multiple rpgs, anti-aircraft cannon fire and large amount of small arms fire and still returning to base dispite having an engine shot out and disabled and 1/3rd of one of its wings blown off and countless bullet holes throughout the entire body of the aircraft.

If both aircraft were carrying A2A weapons I'd bet on the A-10 simply because the Ka-50 probably wouldn't be carrying enough armament to actually down it. Against another chopper I'd give the nod to the Ka-50 mind you.

Battle damage pics are at the bottom of the page.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/a-10-pics.htm

Yes. A-10 is known for its high suvivability. 2 or 3 times it survived after direct hits of Streal and Igla IR potable missiles in Iraq (warhead 2kg). And this is really increadible facts!!! But most of the times it was downed after those IR missile hits. Look here for statistics....
http://www.rjlee.org/aaloss.html

Knowing that I state - if a hit from R-73M happened this leaves no chance for any aircraft...... 7.4 HE expandind road will leave little pieces from most middle size aircrafts...... it is far more than usual sharpnel warhead used in Igla/Strela.... However A-10 can effectivelly hide from R-73M or any other active homing AA missile at low altitude.... same as Ka-50.

Regarding AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles now fitted to A-10... they are just old even in their latest version..... though VERY CHEAP (good point). IR homing ?!?!?....... well both Ka-50 and AH-64, or any other combat rotorcraft have systems against Infra Red active homing.... AIM-9 will hit a heat dump droped from Ka-50/AH-64/combat helicopter. Its range is 10 miles on the altitude where a combat will happen. Warhead of 11kg sound cool but it uses sharpnel and fragments and blows at a distance from target => less efficiency.

Now compare this to R-73M which is radar activelly homing/guided missile, targeted from helmet, with range of 30-40km, 7.4 kg HE expandible road warhead and comparable to AIM-9 cost.

In addition to that Ka-50 has a air-to-air capability built into its radar while A-10 does not. (no place for AA radar.... the space is used for nose gun). Ka-50 radar may guide R-73 missile => there is a 50/50 chance that it will be able to kill A-10 which hides at low atlitude. And this radar will always warn Ka-50 of its prey A-10 on the range of 30km. This radar will also detect AIM-9 or Stinger at 5km distanse..... an active homing missile will be detected earlier.

Gun. A-10 gun is probably much more powerfull. But it is fixed - you may shoot only when go strait to target. Unlike a tank Ka-50 is moving fast and is quite maneuvrable to point gun on it. In addition to that it is not possible to catch tail and side of Ka-50, due to co-axial system it may always turn directly at you. And finally its gun is not fixed - it does not need to have enemy stright ahead => Ka-50 will probably shoot first...... I have no idea what gun is more precise.... but Ka-50 can boast extremelly high precision for its gun due to perfect ballancing in center of mass.

In addition to that Ka-50 can hide in one place like ditches or behind a hills while A-10 has to fly. On low altitudes this is qutie essential to survive.....

As a complex Ka-50/52 was designed with secondary function to fight A-10/OA-10 and other CAS. And BLACK SHARK has everything it needs to eat its prey if it meets subsonic CAS. A-10 world best CAS, but it was simply not designed for Air-to-Air combat => no AA radar (westinghouse radar in it can not be called radar), no AA missiles but some IR fire and forgets..... Simply they are from different ages and concepts.

canoe
10 Oct 05,, 22:19
"Knowing that I state - if a hit from R-73M happened this leaves no chance for any aircraft...... 7.4 HE expandind road will leave little pieces from most middle size aircrafts...... it is far more than usual sharpnel warhead used in Igla/Strela.... However A-10 can effectivelly hide from R-73M or any other active homing AA missile at low altitude.... same as Ka-50. "

"Now compare this to R-73M which is radar activelly homing/guided missile, targeted from helmet, with range of 30-40km, 7.4 kg HE expandible road warhead and comparable to AIM-9 cost. "

Not sure maybe you can confirm this but according to fas.org R-73M is a fire and forget passive infrared seeker and isen't radar locking. It can sport a radar proximaty fuse which is basiclly the same deal as the AIM-9 but it still uses an infrared seeker.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/aa-11.htm

"Regarding AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles now fitted to A-10... they are just old even in their latest version..... though VERY CHEAP (good point). IR homing ?!?!?....... well both Ka-50 and AH-64, or any other combat rotorcraft have systems against Infra Red active homing.... AIM-9 will hit a heat dump droped from Ka-50/AH-64/combat helicopter. Its range is 10 miles on the altitude where a combat will happen. Warhead of 11kg sound cool but it uses sharpnel and fragments and blows at a distance from target => less efficiency."

True but helicopters in general are not well know for soaking damage, pretty much everything on the chopper is a vital area. But the Ka-50's radar will definately be an asset it that the Ka-50 will see the A-10 coming.

"Gun. A-10 gun is probably much more powerfull. But it is fixed - you may shoot only when go strait to target. Unlike a tank Ka-50 is moving fast and is quite maneuvrable to point gun on it. In addition to that it is not possible to catch tail and side of Ka-50, due to co-axial system it may always turn directly at you. And finally its gun is not fixed - it does not need to have enemy stright ahead => Ka-50 will probably shoot first...... I have no idea what gun is more precise.... but Ka-50 can boast extremelly high precision for its gun due to perfect ballancing in center of mass. "

True in that the Ka-50 will have an easier time bringing its gun to bear, and yes the A-10's gun is vastly more powerful, it fires at mix of 30mm HE, AP and DU rounds at a rate of 3900 rounds a minute. I'd imagine because of the firing rate and velocity of the rounds it wouldn't need any direct hits, near misses would be enough to destroy a helicopter. Basiclly the whole senario would depend on the Ka-50 downing the A-10 before it could fire.

"In addition to that Ka-50 can hide in one place like ditches or behind a hills while A-10 has to fly. On low altitudes this is qutie essential to survive..... "

Fair enough.

"As a complex Ka-50/52 was designed with secondary function to fight A-10/OA-10 and other CAS. And BLACK SHARK has everything it needs to eat its prey if it meets subsonic CAS. A-10 world best CAS, but it was simply not designed for Air-to-Air combat => no AA radar (westinghouse radar in it can not be called radar), no AA missiles but some IR fire and forgets..... Simply they are from different ages and concepts.[/QUOTE]"

Very true the A-10 wasn't designed for A2A, however I'd say its about as capable of it as the Ka-50 minus the radar which admittly is a fairly big advantage however it is offset somewhat but the A-10 carrying a more armament and being able to survive a significant amount of damage. Given both aircraft need to engage WVR it evens things out a little.

Garry
11 Oct 05,, 21:11
"Knowing that I state - if a hit from R-73M happened this leaves no chance for any aircraft...... 7.4 HE expandind road will leave little pieces from most middle size aircrafts...... it is far more than usual sharpnel warhead used in Igla/Strela.... However A-10 can effectivelly hide from R-73M or any other active homing AA missile at low altitude.... same as Ka-50. "

"Now compare this to R-73M which is radar activelly homing/guided missile, targeted from helmet, with range of 30-40km, 7.4 kg HE expandible road warhead and comparable to AIM-9 cost. "

Not sure maybe you can confirm this but according to fas.org R-73M is a fire and forget passive infrared seeker and isen't radar locking. It can sport a radar proximaty fuse which is basiclly the same deal as the AIM-9 but it still uses an infrared seeker.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/row/aa-11.htm


I was wrong. I had in mind R-77 which Ka-50 does not have. It has R-73M1 with IR seeker and helmet guided system. No radar guidance


"Regarding AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles now fitted to A-10... they are just old even in their latest version..... though VERY CHEAP (good point). IR homing ?!?!?....... well both Ka-50 and AH-64, or any other combat rotorcraft have systems against Infra Red active homing.... AIM-9 will hit a heat dump droped from Ka-50/AH-64/combat helicopter. Its range is 10 miles on the altitude where a combat will happen. Warhead of 11kg sound cool but it uses sharpnel and fragments and blows at a distance from target => less efficiency."

True but helicopters in general are not well know for soaking damage, pretty much everything on the chopper is a vital area. But the Ka-50's radar will definately be an asset it that the Ka-50 will see the A-10 coming.


Actually I looked more into AIM-9X.... it has far beter than old AIM-9..... so if A-10 is to be refitted with AIM-9X it would match R-73M1

Ka-50 is different than other helicopters. In firing test confirmed that can fly while having lost its tail and one blade on any of its two rotors and one engine down (that happened after it was shot by burst of Shilka ZSU during tests). Its engines are located from both sides of the body so you can not kill both engines with one shot. Engine and cabin are armored (alluminium alloys). Absence of tail rotor reduces number of gears and control rods dramatically.... hence all critical parts are now close to engines and rotor shaft + cabin.

Well direct burst from A-10 eight barreled 30-mm gun would still tear Ka-50 apart.... but not the shapnel from explosions around


"Gun. A-10 gun is probably much more powerfull. But it is fixed - you may shoot only when go strait to target. Unlike a tank Ka-50 is moving fast and is quite maneuvrable to point gun on it. In addition to that it is not possible to catch tail and side of Ka-50, due to co-axial system it may always turn directly at you. And finally its gun is not fixed - it does not need to have enemy stright ahead => Ka-50 will probably shoot first...... I have no idea what gun is more precise.... but Ka-50 can boast extremelly high precision for its gun due to perfect ballancing in center of mass. "

True in that the Ka-50 will have an easier time bringing its gun to bear, and yes the A-10's gun is vastly more powerful, it fires at mix of 30mm HE, AP and DU rounds at a rate of 3900 rounds a minute. I'd imagine because of the firing rate and velocity of the rounds it wouldn't need any direct hits, near misses would be enough to destroy a helicopter. Basiclly the whole senario would depend on the Ka-50 downing the A-10 before it could fire.

"In addition to that Ka-50 can hide in one place like ditches or behind a hills while A-10 has to fly. On low altitudes this is qutie essential to survive..... "

Fair enough.

"As a complex Ka-50/52 was designed with secondary function to fight A-10/OA-10 and other CAS. And BLACK SHARK has everything it needs to eat its prey if it meets subsonic CAS. A-10 world best CAS, but it was simply not designed for Air-to-Air combat => no AA radar (westinghouse radar in it can not be called radar), no AA missiles but some IR fire and forgets..... Simply they are from different ages and concepts."

Very true the A-10 wasn't designed for A2A, however I'd say its about as capable of it as the Ka-50 minus the radar which admittly is a fairly big advantage however it is offset somewhat but the A-10 carrying a more armament and being able to survive a significant amount of damage. Given both aircraft need to engage WVR it evens things out a little.

In my view Ka-50/52 will dominate A-10 on high altitude, where its radar gives advantage of shooting first .... however both Ka-50/52 and A-10 most probably will not fly high altitudes in their meeting point - battlefield area. It is dangerous for both of them. Hence they have higher chance to meet on lower altitudes than what is good for AAM fight.

The lower altitude engagement is less clear. Both AIM-9/AIM-9X and R-73M1 are pointless, as well as Arbalet radar's air-to-air function.

1) If A-10 meets Ka-50 on in front at low altitude it would be able to shoot Kamov down from distance of 2-3km pretty easily, though at low atltitude hardly that long range would be visible. Here Kamov's 30mm gun would have slightlty less initial velocity and fire rate to compete in direct head to head competition. However if A-10 misses or gives a chance to detect itself (flies bit higher than 50m) Ka-50 may always hide using obstacles and its helicopter's capability.

2) If they meet in on low altitude and Ka-50 is not directly in front of A-10 then Ka-50 will most probaly shoots first .... at the range of 1.5-2km it may destrong lightly armored targets and A-10 as well. If it misses the chance to shot down first and gives time for A-10 to aim its gun at close range Ka-50 would be just torn apart with avenger 8 barrel.

To me it looks like Black Shark will still eat its prey.... On high altitudes A-10 has little chance and probability of A-10 having by luck unaware Kamov just in frong of its avenger is low. It also looks unlikelly that Ka-50 misses and gives time to aim averager..... even though A2A gun is less powerfull than avernger its 800 rounds per seccond and 4km range is enough to do its job.

Garry
14 Nov 05,, 17:27
Just read a report about latest versions and on probable direction of Black Shark modernization....

Overall impression - having lost competition to Night Hunter (Mi-28N) as a main combat helicopter for Russian Army..... Kamov is moving more towards Air-to-Air and reconnaisance functions. Pricewards a clear movement up...... now when they realize that they can not sell large numbers of Black Shark to Russian Army they want to make them more expensive and use for special role.... modest price is just for mass products, while Kamov wants an exclusive halo for now small serial rotorcraft....

The focus is now optional either on intelligense or on air support to tank columns and transport helicopters!!! For both Kamov needs different radars and avionics.

Intelligense means using its capabilities to fly on very silent mode, very low..... and detect enemies postions, SAMs, artillery, tanks etc. I actually don't understand this conceipt alltogehter - a UAV is much cheaper solution and does not involve risk to the crew + longer time in air. Also why helicopter? I know that US uses its Kiowa for that....

Air defense function was also a bit strange just like a destroyer ship to a convoy... it assumed to include unheard capabilities like:
CAPABILITY TO SHOOT DOWN MISSILES attacking a flock of transport helicopters using combination of radar, computer, flexible rotating autocannon and extreme manuevrability..... something like flying Close-in weapon system (CIWS).....
BWR Capability to engage supersonic air threats up to the fighter/bomber!
Strike capability against radars of SAMs....

However they state that Black Shark is not assumed to replace a fighter, only air defense to helicopters and tanks in areas where there is no hostile air dominance.... I have no idea what does this mean. Probably this means that enemy may still get through air defense and fighters and attack a column or helicoptes convoy and then Black Shark would engage them.

It was interesting to read that such modernization would require complete rethinking of the design which is now focused on CAS/anti tank function. It will require development of new radar and other sensors, replacement of weapons, and increase of range/fuel capacities.

Interesting ideas but these were just a conceptual discussions for a change not an actual modernization program. Kamov is close to be bankrupt.... they have no cash even to finish testing of already made new versions

ARH Gabriel
27 Mar 06,, 12:51
South africa also developed their own attack helicopter using a similar technology.

Garry
27 Mar 06,, 13:31
In general it is feasible to shot down missiles using cannon installed on flexible pod and guided by radar.

However this works well with Kamov because it can turn in 2 seconds..... no other helicopter can do so...... except for XH-59A, Advancing Blade Concept (S-69)prototype which is now in NASA.....

Garry
28 Aug 06,, 14:18
Russian ministry of Defense decided to turn Ka-50 into a helicopter for Special Operations and SpetsNaz. In the statement it is quoted - "due to the high cost which is twice the serial helicopter Mi-28N"....

Kamov's Black Shark is back. Trully the best combat helicopter ever!

SRB
28 Aug 06,, 15:32
And Komkov isnt only Russian company.Part of Kamkov hold Sirkorski.There is some very good comercial Kamkovs build in coperation with Sirkorski.
I will go for Mi-28.It is better armored and use convecional rotor system.And it is so ugly that opponent will freak out when it see :biggrin:
P.S. Kamkov Ka-50 is best looking military chopter ever build.

Garry
29 Aug 06,, 10:34
And Komkov isnt only Russian company.Part of Kamkov hold Sirkorski.There is some very good comercial Kamkovs build in coperation with Sirkorski.
I will go for Mi-28.It is better armored and use convecional rotor system.And it is so ugly that opponent will freak out when it see :biggrin:
P.S. Kamkov Ka-50 is best looking military chopter ever build.

Conventional rotor system is cheap but less efficient => your chopper needs more power wasted to rotate larger blades => slower in taking off and vertical acceleration => higher fuel consumption => less payload per total take off weight. Besides wight inefficiency of carrying the tail fan and its transmittion vs just somewhat heavier central rotor of a co-axial system. In addition to that co-axial system gives opportunity to turn 180 on UNMATCHED speed of 2 seconds on max speed and BOTH left/right (traditional usually turns to the direction of main blades rotation). Besides the helicopter can move sidewards - strave..... this is very useful in combat against ground targets.

The last advantage - the shorter the main blades the higher speed can be achieved by the rotorcraft - something from aerodynamics which I don't understand yet but conventional system has some theoretical max speed while the same is higher with co-axial.

The co-axial system has its shortcommings - it is MUCH more expensive to design, and maintain as it requires higher endurance of main rotor colunm and its special design. Another serious problem is threat of OVERLAPPING the blades when helicopter dives down on high speed! This kills the crew and rotorcraft. This problem can be mitigated by reducing flexibility of the blades..... however it can not be resolved in principle - Co-axials will not be able to dive down fast.

So that is it. A summary of their differences.

ps. Kamov's black shark is world best because it is the only one built on co-axial system + it has superior avionics (radar+helmet mounted targeting+infrared).

omon
02 Nov 06,, 19:09
ka 50 will not be in russian army, due to blades overlap, not deadly for ka 50 since it has ejection seat (blades shoot off before ejecting). mi 28 will be the chopper of choice for russian army. a few years ago in sweeden there was war games beetwin ah64 and mi 28 they proved to be allmost similar with slight advantage for mi. (ah64 had problems locking on missles on mi28,(not stealthy but manuverable, also mi 20 km/h faster.)

GGTharos
02 Nov 06,, 23:43
Well ain't that a whole lot of misinformation ...

A) Ka-50 is the best helo around. Not.

You make it sound as if the double-rotor design has no issues of its own. The Ka-50 is a highly unstable heli and causes yaw issues in particular at slow speeds. The stabilizer system takes care of a bunch of this, but you can still induce oscillations which can be fatal if you're a n00b.

Your explanation of the blade overlap is funny. Actually the overlap is an issue at high speed/collective where on one side the rotor discs aproach each other. Any high G (for a heli) maneuver you pull at this point may in fact cause the blades to collide. It has /nothing/ to do with diving. You can dive to your heart's concent, just make sure you leave yourself room to pull out, and operate that collective with care.

The weapons system on it is relatively archaic. It uses a beam-riding missile which, while cheap, does not allow lofted profiles which are useful for clearing obstructions, and it cannot use buddy lasing.

The Shkval targetting system has +/-35 deg azimush limits ... compared to the Apache's, this is laughable. Not to mention it lacks IR equipment, so it cannot really be used for night combat.

There's no radar of any sort, nor is there likely to be any. It won't be carrying R-73's (nor can those turn fighters into little pieces. Get a grip) and AIM-9M's are modern enough to make mince meat out of any Heli they get close to (what makes you think that if stinger is an effective weapon against a heli, an AIM-9 isn't?)
I'll tell you one thing ... whoever said this thing will be shooting down supersonic fighter or *heh* MISSILES, does /not/ have a clue! NONE! ZERO!

The assessment of the Ka-50 vs. an A-10 is /laughable/ ... A-10 at high altitude has few chances? Ka-50 will not miss? Heh.
The Ka-50 has to pitch up to shoot any significant angle up. This means it will fly backwards, ands its pilot cannot see where the thing is going. Not only is he gonna miss, he's gonna fly himself into something.

Overall the A-10 provides much better visual SA than a Ka-50, and it is over twice as fast. Helis /cannot/ and consequently /do not/ complete with fixed wing aircraft for airspace/air dominance, because they'd get owned and they /know it/.


None of this makes the heli ineffective in principle: It is equipped with the ABRIS navigation system, an inter-flight data link system, an ejection seat, and so on and so forth.

However it lacks an RWR in its current incarnation, so you don't really want to use it in a 'high intensity' conflict.

Flight characteristics aside, this thing has less capable avionics than the AH-64A, let alone the D.


B) Ka-50 will not be in the Russian Army.

Wrong. A limited number of Ka-50s will be used as an interim solution while waiting for the more advanced Mi-28 to ramp up production.

omon
03 Nov 06,, 15:32
Well ain't that a whole lot of misinformation ...

A) Ka-50 is the best helo around. Not.

You make it sound as if the double-rotor design has no issues of its own. The Ka-50 is a highly unstable heli and causes yaw issues in particular at slow speeds. The stabilizer system takes care of a bunch of this, but you can still induce oscillations which can be fatal if you're a n00b.

Your explanation of the blade overlap is funny. Actually the overlap is an issue at high speed/collective where on one side the rotor discs aproach each other. Any high G (for a heli) maneuver you pull at this point may in fact cause the blades to collide. It has /nothing/ to do with diving. You can dive to your heart's concent, just make sure you leave yourself room to pull out, and operate that collective with care.

The weapons system on it is relatively archaic. It uses a beam-riding missile which, while cheap, does not allow lofted profiles which are useful for clearing obstructions, and it cannot use buddy lasing.

The Shkval targetting system has +/-35 deg azimush limits ... compared to the Apache's, this is laughable. Not to mention it lacks IR equipment, so it cannot really be used for night combat.

There's no radar of any sort, nor is there likely to be any. It won't be carrying R-73's (nor can those turn fighters into little pieces. Get a grip) and AIM-9M's are modern enough to make mince meat out of any Heli they get close to (what makes you think that if stinger is an effective weapon against a heli, an AIM-9 isn't?)
I'll tell you one thing ... whoever said this thing will be shooting down supersonic fighter or *heh* MISSILES, does /not/ have a clue! NONE! ZERO!

The assessment of the Ka-50 vs. an A-10 is /laughable/ ... A-10 at high altitude has few chances? Ka-50 will not miss? Heh.
The Ka-50 has to pitch up to shoot any significant angle up. This means it will fly backwards, ands its pilot cannot see where the thing is going. Not only is he gonna miss, he's gonna fly himself into something.

Overall the A-10 provides much better visual SA than a Ka-50, and it is over twice as fast. Helis /cannot/ and consequently /do not/ complete with fixed wing aircraft for airspace/air dominance, because they'd get owned and they /know it/.


None of this makes the heli ineffective in principle: It is equipped with the ABRIS navigation system, an inter-flight data link system, an ejection seat, and so on and so forth.

However it lacks an RWR in its current incarnation, so you don't really want to use it in a 'high intensity' conflict.

Flight characteristics aside, this thing has less capable avionics than the AH-64A, let alone the D.


B) Ka-50 will not be in the Russian Army.

Wrong. A limited number of Ka-50s will be used as an interim solution while waiting for the more advanced Mi-28 to ramp up production.

so where is whole lot of misinformation ??
nobody ever said ka better then a 10. why don'y u compare dump truck and corvette next time

omon
03 Nov 06,, 15:56
sorry GGTharos, I don't yet know how to post, it looks like i stole your post, didn't mean to,

Garry
03 Nov 06,, 16:42
Well ain't that a whole lot of misinformation ...

A) Ka-50 is the best helo around. Not.

You make it sound as if the double-rotor design has no issues of its own. The Ka-50 is a highly unstable heli and causes yaw issues in particular at slow speeds. The stabilizer system takes care of a bunch of this, but you can still induce oscillations which can be fatal if you're a n00b.

Your explanation of the blade overlap is funny. Actually the overlap is an issue at high speed/collective where on one side the rotor discs aproach each other. Any high G (for a heli) maneuver you pull at this point may in fact cause the blades to collide. It has /nothing/ to do with diving. You can dive to your heart's concent, just make sure you leave yourself room to pull out, and operate that collective with care.

The weapons system on it is relatively archaic. It uses a beam-riding missile which, while cheap, does not allow lofted profiles which are useful for clearing obstructions, and it cannot use buddy lasing.

The Shkval targetting system has +/-35 deg azimush limits ... compared to the Apache's, this is laughable. Not to mention it lacks IR equipment, so it cannot really be used for night combat.

There's no radar of any sort, nor is there likely to be any. It won't be carrying R-73's (nor can those turn fighters into little pieces. Get a grip) and AIM-9M's are modern enough to make mince meat out of any Heli they get close to (what makes you think that if stinger is an effective weapon against a heli, an AIM-9 isn't?)
I'll tell you one thing ... whoever said this thing will be shooting down supersonic fighter or *heh* MISSILES, does /not/ have a clue! NONE! ZERO!

The assessment of the Ka-50 vs. an A-10 is /laughable/ ... A-10 at high altitude has few chances? Ka-50 will not miss? Heh.
The Ka-50 has to pitch up to shoot any significant angle up. This means it will fly backwards, ands its pilot cannot see where the thing is going. Not only is he gonna miss, he's gonna fly himself into something.

Overall the A-10 provides much better visual SA than a Ka-50, and it is over twice as fast. Helis /cannot/ and consequently /do not/ complete with fixed wing aircraft for airspace/air dominance, because they'd get owned and they /know it/.


None of this makes the heli ineffective in principle: It is equipped with the ABRIS navigation system, an inter-flight data link system, an ejection seat, and so on and so forth.

However it lacks an RWR in its current incarnation, so you don't really want to use it in a 'high intensity' conflict.

Flight characteristics aside, this thing has less capable avionics than the AH-64A, let alone the D.


B) Ka-50 will not be in the Russian Army.

Wrong. A limited number of Ka-50s will be used as an interim solution while waiting for the more advanced Mi-28 to ramp up production.

Well. You are stating something which I know as opposite
1) R-73... why do you state what you do? Are you sure? Cause I do have a contact who flew Kamov, and another one who was marketing the help at Kamov. Both believe you are wrong....
2) Radar. Please be more specific.
3) Diving at high G. You are correct. High G may cause overlapping. Yet Kamov is the ONLY helo capable flying Loop. It did that numerous times and only one helo has crashed so far during testing after having flown few hundred of hours of very demanding tests!!! So answer is - it can be safe if it done properly not exceeding G limit
4) Highly unstable on zero speed? This is something I got to learn. I mean I am interested to learn why! I was told that it is THE MOST STABLE EVER.... and THE ONLY WHICH CAN FLY SIDEWARDS AT 70kmh.
5) A-10 at high altitude would be killed by R-73 at range of 10-15km. It does not have radar capable of air to air missions to realize that Kamov is there. Ka-50/52 has and would be aware of A-10 or Longbow at range of 30km.
6) Yes. Beamed weapons of Ka-50 are outdated.... radar guided are much beter... Kamov lacks efficient weapons.
7) Both helicopters used in Chechnya had RWR
8) Ka can pitch up and sidewards while staying on zero speed. Any helo can but for single rotor helo it is dangerous (it can slide down backwards). Kamov can even do it sidwards!!! Its gun is designed with ELEVATION of up to 10 degree to mount on enemy... moreover its gun has computer to be targeted/stabilise gun on FAST MOVING TARGET. Its blades are the only factor limiting gun elevation... luckilly with Kamov those are SHORT. In my view 10 degrees and pop up is enough to shoot up what it is intended to shoot (rest must be done by missile)
9) both A-10 and Longbow are no way made for air fights. Ka-50 was made to kill them. It has what it needs for that - radar, missiles, gun+supermaneuvrability. It lacks speed.... to catch up
10) it has been equiped with IR and has night capability.
11) True its radar is less capable that that of Longbow against ground targets... it needs more elevation to match Longbow's radar precision.

ps. Kamov was tested on shooting down air to air missiles with its gun. The conlusion was that with somewhat different radar and a gun with higher RPM it could do the job.

GGTharos
04 Nov 06,, 00:32
Well. You are stating something which I know as opposite
1) R-73... why do you state what you do? Are you sure? Cause I do have a contact who flew Kamov, and another one who was marketing the help at Kamov. Both believe you are wrong....


Yes, I'm sure ... are you sure you're really talking to Kamov guys? The Russian Army did some experiments with AAMs on helis ... yes, yoU CAN fit them and you CAN launch them, but they are not very useful. A fighter will see your helo even if its stationary and on the ground from 100km away so long as the rotor's spinning. Radar's wonderful, ain't it? This means that fighter will know where you are, and you won't know where -it- is. You're dead. Just like that ... seriously.



2) Radar. Please be more specific.


The Ka-50 will not be equipping a radar.
And if it -were- to equip a radar, it would be specifically geared to combatting ground targets. While it could detect an aircraft, you can be sure of one thing: All Heli training manuals say 'avoid other aircraft'. Not just fixed wing, ANY. Helis avoid engagements with other airborne opponents almost at all costs!



3) Diving at high G. You are correct. High G may cause overlapping. Yet Kamov is the ONLY helo capable flying Loop. It did that numerous times and only one helo has crashed so far during testing after having flown few hundred of hours of very demanding tests!!! So answer is - it can be safe if it done properly not exceeding G limit


Sorry, AH-64 and other helis have flown loops.




4) Highly unstable on zero speed? This is something I got to learn. I mean I am interested to learn why! I was told that it is THE MOST STABLE EVER.... and THE ONLY WHICH CAN FLY SIDEWARDS AT 70kmh.


Wrong and wrong. The Ka-50 is -extremely- unstable. It has several stabilizers to help the pilot out. And its claim to fame is not flying sideways at 70kph - other helis can pull this off ... it's close to 180kph for the Ka-50 ;) That's the difference. But this isn't useful in and of itself - it gives you a specific advantage in -very specific- situations. It's a great thing, but basically it doesn't count very often.



5) A-10 at high altitude would be killed by R-73 at range of 10-15km. It does not have radar capable of air to air missions to realize that Kamov is there. Ka-50/52 has and would be aware of A-10 or Longbow at range of 30km.


*BZZZZZZZZT* Wrong. The R-73 ain't reaching squat at high altitude if fired from low altitude. These weapons don't have unlimited thrust and speed you know - they peter out quite quickly, and in addition, it actually is not so easy to so much as lock up an A-10 that far away with a good ole reticle seeker equipped missile ... that's about the limit, unless it's an -extremely- clear day (in which case under -some circumstances you might get a 20km lock). But in general? A Ka-50 flying down below won't even know there's anything out there at 'high altitude'.

Again, Ka-50 does not equip a radar, and the Ka-52 does not even exist operationally, let alone equip a radar ... as for being 'aware', that's again BS. Those things won't be running around with their radars on all the time, not to mention there's a serious angular limitation ... the radar won't scan above you, it'll scan at an angle. Anything flying high -could- easily be missed.

Lastly, where's this 30km coming from? Radar isn't magic. The radar horizon won't exceed past 15km unless the Ka-50 flies high, in which case a fighter will come by to eat it right away.

A-10s and AH-64's equip RWRs and believe you me, if the 50 so much as squeaks with that non-existant radar those two aircraft will know, and the pilots will be looking that way.



6) Yes. Beamed weapons of Ka-50 are outdated.... radar guided are much beter... Kamov lacks efficient weapons.


They're quite efficient at killing armor, but they're outdated. They can also be used against aircraft under certain circumstances (slow crossing rates specifically) which is another reason to not bother with the big, heavy R-73 which you are -unlikely- to use in the performance of your mission.



7) Both helicopters used in Chechnya had RWR


Sadly it was removed and replaced with ABRIS since they realized it wasn't needed ...



8) Ka can pitch up and sidewards while staying on zero speed. Any helo can but for single rotor helo it is dangerous (it can slide down backwards). Kamov can even do it sidwards!!!


Wrong. Very, VERY wrong. You pitch the chopper, it will change position.



Its gun is designed with ELEVATION of up to 10 degree to mount on enemy... moreover its gun has computer to be targeted/stabilise gun on FAST MOVING TARGET. Its blades are the only factor limiting gun elevation... luckilly with Kamov those are SHORT. In my view 10 degrees and pop up is enough to shoot up what it is intended to shoot (rest must be done by missile)


10 deg is very little. If you need to pitch up another 20 deg, you're better off flying forward and under the fighter ... I'll leave the why up to your imagination.

As for the gun stabilization: It is meant for destroying relatively slow moving ground targets, and lacks effectiveness against a relatively fast aircraft which is -well- out of parameters that you want to engage it at (if you have to pitch up significantly its out of parameters. Pretty much all there is to it)



9) both A-10 and Longbow are no way made for air fights. Ka-50 was made to kill them. It has what it needs for that - radar, missiles, gun+supermaneuvrability. It lacks speed.... to catch up


No, it wasn't. It was promoted as a Heli interceptor, but the army never bit. It's no A-10 killer ... it is meant to destroy armor and personnel, and it is equipped to do exactly that.

It has no radar, it will not be getting equipped with a more potent missile than an Igla stack against aircraft, and in fact it isn't even /meant/ to operate in such a high-threat environment ... which is something thatw as proven in Chechnya. you don't send a helo to do a fighter's job unless you're desperate ... really desperate.



10) it has been equiped with IR and has night capability.


That is a relatively new version, a prototype, and what will be getting bought by the Russian Army ... but its night capability ain't all it was cracked up to be (yet). In a lot of the existing airframes this is just a pair of night goggles, and that's merely for transit - combat it not possible because the Shkval is a daylight optics system only.



11) True its radar is less capable that that of Longbow against ground targets... it needs more elevation to match Longbow's radar precision.


IT HAS NO RADAR. And it is unlikely to get one.



ps. Kamov was tested on shooting down air to air missiles with its gun. The conlusion was that with somewhat different radar and a gun with higher RPM it could do the job.

Look, this is BS. There's precicely one way to shoot down an AAM: head on, or tail on.

This leads to two consequences: This missile is out of range by the time you lock it, or, it hits you before you do anything. This is very very simple math, man - I don't even have to go /check/ with /any/ source to tell you this. Whoever told you this little story is feeding you pure, and I mean /pure/ BS.

PURE! Get it!

And I'll tell you why: Every pilot in the world will tell you that post-burn an AAM is very hard to see visually, and in cases where you want to be agressive you -need- to see it to dodge it. And that's -if- the missile is fired from far away, otherwise you won't likely outmaneuver it.

You have to dodge as soon as you see it.

Now tell me what it is that makes you think that a Ka-50 shooting down an AMM is /at all/ feasible. /at all/. You don't even get to lock on to it before it hits you.

Check your source ... doesn't sound like anyone working in Kamov /or/ if they are, they don't actually have a clue about the Ka-50, or airborne weapons systems of any sort.

omon
07 Nov 06,, 23:14
[QUOTE=GGTharos;289663]
The Ka-50 will not be equipping a radar.
And if it -were- to equip a radar, it would be specifically geared to combatting ground targets. While it could detect an aircraft, you can be sure of one thing: All Heli training manuals say 'avoid other aircraft'. Not just fixed wing, ANY. Helis avoid engagements with other airborne opponents almost at all costs!

you mean that state of the russian art helo that costs almost 2x mi28 costs doesn,t even have a radar??? hard to belive , then what is the whole point of this helo?? it's blind ,as good as dead

GGTharos
07 Nov 06,, 23:34
Helos do their work visually for the most part.

Only the Longbow and now, the Mi-28 is equipping radar.

The Ka-50 is a low production aircraft and as such it costs quite a bit per aircraft.

I'm not sure how you can say the lack of radar makes it blind though ...

The Ka-50 is not 'state of the art'. It's old.

nicolle'
08 Nov 06,, 13:00
http://www.air-attack.com/page/59/KA-50-Hokum.html#specs
http://www.aeronautics.ru/archive/vvs/ka50-01.htm
http://www.bearcraft-online.com/museum/museum.htm?mid=38
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/row/ka-50.htm
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/ka50/
Acording to all this sources Ka-50 is among the best attack helicopters in the world. Also it has at least terrain-following radar and depending on variant it also has mast-mounted millimeter wave radar.

GGTharos
09 Nov 06,, 00:05
I could probably find you a source stating that the Rh-66 is the best heli in the world, and I could even find you people who'd believe it.

Let's face some facts:

Ka-50 was -barely- ressurected.
It will be produced in limited quantity to fill a temporary gap due to Mi-28 production issues.
The Mi-28 will be the primary attack helicopter.

Does it sound to you like the Ka-50 is 'the best helicopter in the world'?

And no, it won't likely have a radar of any sort. Most of the Ka-50 variants built to date have been prototypes (ie. there's no real Ka-50 production model right now, or if there is, it is quite recent) and the variants of the Ka-50 that were -operationally- tested had no radar whatsoever, and no IIR (ie. no night ops).

It's also funny how they call the SHKVAL an 'advanced targeting system'. IN actuality it is a POS compared to the AH-64's and Mi-28's, and potentially even the Mi-24's, JUST from the viewpoint of gimbal angle (+/35 deg for SHKVAL. Can you believe it? All other helis tend to have +-90 deg azimuth or more!)

Yes, it -is- equipped with a radar altimeter, which can in a very -limited- fashion function as a TFR.

Garry
09 Nov 06,, 17:56
Serious critics... I was interested to read.

However you are definitelly wrong in terms of radar and RWR for both 50 and 52. Same for a pair of R-73M1 - igla version was for Turkey. The 50 was intended for fight with CAS and helos - at least it was projected additional features for that.

Stability.... let me come back on this issue. I need to check it before arguing here.... can not argue on night IR.... I did not speak about this and base on internet reading which give little detail on how good/bad it is.

Garry
09 Nov 06,, 18:07
And no, it won't likely have a radar of any sort. Most of the Ka-50 variants built to date have been prototypes (ie. there's no real Ka-50 production model right now, or if there is, it is quite recent) and the variants of the Ka-50 that were -operationally- tested had no radar whatsoever, and no IIR (ie. no night ops).

It's also funny how they call the SHKVAL an 'advanced targeting system'. IN actuality it is a POS compared to the AH-64's and Mi-28's, and potentially even the Mi-24's, JUST from the viewpoint of gimbal angle (+/35 deg for SHKVAL. Can you believe it? All other helis tend to have +-90 deg azimuth or more!)

Yes, it -is- equipped with a radar altimeter, which can in a very -limited- fashion function as a TFR.

I guess you have something wrong on Radar and IR. Ka-50 which were tested HAD functional radar and IR was tested at night.

I agree that its air to ground weapons are rather outdated and it would have problems with laser guidance in a real battle field. Azimuth.... bad... but no helicopter can turn as fast as Kamov can... I agree narow sight is undisputably bad.

Anyway. I see no point why this platform can not be re-equipped with better air to ground weapons. In all other aspects it is quite advanced....

What do you think of co-axials in general?

GGTharos
09 Nov 06,, 23:43
The Ka-50 has a nice airframe and generally desireable characteristics in speed, maneuver, climb, lift capacity and stability in turbulence (elaboration: These guys were operating in mountainous areas. When you fly in narrow valleys or close to the walls of a valley you usually get a lot of wind from one side or the other trying to push you in every which direction. Conventional helis have a problem with this and try to stay away from the sides - we're talking major crash hazard. The coaxials aren't immune to this, but they are -much- better behaved)

The Ka-50s that were *operationally* tested had -no- IR and -no- RWR.
None whatsoever - it was quite simply not needed.

And yes, it can be re-equipped, and there are variants of the Ka-50 displaying a new sensor module intead of the old SHKVAL.

As I said before, just about every Ka-50 out there is in fact a test bed, with different hardware.

And no, the 'rest of it' isn't particularely advanced. The Navigation system is old, and has been supplemented with western avionics now (AMMS/ABRIS).
Likewise the autopilot is not 'fly by wire'.

you can keep pitching the R73 all you want, but it won't be used. It is a big, heavy missile that takes up precious AG ornance space and weight, and you're just -not- likely to use'em. At ebst you'll see an igla stack analogous to the Apache's stinger stack (which, by the way, the Apache does -not- get equipped with).

Right now the only AAM-carrying heli is the AH-1 on escort missions for extracting downed pilots or special ops teams, and its mission is -very clearly- destruction of enemy helis which may threaten the tranport heli or forces ont he ground. It carries two sidewinders plus AG ordnance.
But understand this: The Ah-1W/Z goes out to /find/ trouble specifically .. this is /very/ unique for a heli, VERY!

And its specifically against other helis that may pop in close undected - fighters and detected helis will be dealt with by CAP flights.

And don't forget, a heli's got nothing on an A2A fighter, or even a high-flying attack aircraft.

This is why you won't see R-73's on it, unless it is called on to fulfil a -very- special role, which is just plain unlikely.

The problem isn't mounting/using the weapons, the problem is mission tasking, and as much as the Ka-50 has been touted as some sort of 'interceptor', it has never been used this way, nor will it be, unless there's some unlikely conflict where there's helicopter-only battles and, even in those, historically,the weapons of choice had been the heli's AGMs.

So the question here is, why pay for a capability you won't use?

Also on upgrading the ka-50: The production version is to have aFLIR: http://www.aeronautics.ru/ka50n.jpg
This is the Ka-50N. Upgrading is -very- costly, wether you see a reason for it or not.
Something as stupid as adding a new missile tothe inventory can be shut down due to upgrade requirements t oensure the weapon is useable.

Ruskiy
19 Nov 06,, 08:28
KA-50 -- Alligator
http://plastikova.valka.cz/rec_vrt/images/dml_72_ka50.jpeg
http://landman.vif2.ru/images/Ka-50-4.jpg

KA-52 -- Alligator's yanger but bigger bro
http://www.ginklai.net/images/news/557_3822ka52.jpg
http://www.aeronautics.ru/kamov/ka5201.jpg

MI-28N -- Russian ugly dog
http://blog.chosun.com/web_file/blog/228/47728/1/mi-28n-0130%5B1%5D.jpg
http://www.is.lt/atas/news/nimg/20b.jpg

Дмитрий
19 Nov 06,, 18:48
Davai, davai!!
Maybe a ugly dog (more like a rat), but very mean one.
It can carry "some" weapons.

Ruskiy
20 Nov 06,, 03:48
Davai, davai!!
Maybe a ugly dog (more like a rat), but very mean one.
It can carry "some" weapons.

Da, ya znaju, it can carry 3.5 tonns of weapon load. Its more that any chopper in the world.
Kstate ya hotel sprosit' "kak etshjo mozhno nazvat' Nochnogo ohotnika kak ne pohozhim na bol'shogo slogo psa?";)

Дмитрий
20 Nov 06,, 17:14
Yes indeed, plus it can carry on 2 wingpylons what a apache can carry on 4 of them (ATGM's)

Vot, znajesh, u mena bila tot zje samij vopros, no atvet ne nashol.
Snatchala mne ne nravilas kak on vigledil, no setchas bolche i bolche nravitsa.
It really looks MEAN and is intimidating.

Дмитрий
20 Nov 06,, 17:17
Plus, he was meant for to come out in the eighties.

Ruskiy
20 Nov 06,, 18:29
Mda, mne o tozhe chertovski nravitsa, on voobtshe zver'.
Order to make MI-28 was given 40 years ago, at the same time as order on MI-24, but MI-28 were frozen for 35 years and now it is flying, and flying perfectly.
E'to lutchij vertoljot kakoj ya kogdanibud' videl. I'f someone would see it on the battlefield he would deffinately need dry pants :biggrin:

GGTharos
20 Nov 06,, 23:33
If someone saw it in a battlefield they'd execute their counter-air drill.

Дмитрий
21 Nov 06,, 17:50
Mda, mne o tozhe chertovski nravitsa, on voobtshe zver'.
Order to make MI-28 was given 40 years ago, at the same time as order on MI-24, but MI-28 were frozen for 35 years and now it is flying, and flying perfectly.
E'to lutchij vertoljot kakoj ya kogdanibud' videl. I'f someone would see it on the battlefield he would deffinately need dry pants :biggrin:

Hehe, da.
Mne tozje otchen nravitsa Mi-24, no dvatsatvosmoj zdelan tolka dla boya.
And when people have to admit that the Mi-28 is better than apach then some people try to claim that the 28 was develloped later than the apache.
What is not true.

Ruskiy
21 Nov 06,, 21:05
Dmitriy, I'm completly agree with you.

Ruskiy
21 Nov 06,, 21:06
If someone saw it in a battlefield they'd execute their counter-air drill.

Yes, they will execute their counter air drill, destroy their own choppers, drink couple litters of vodka (they would think that they are glitching), and then commit suicide =) ;)

Дмитрий
21 Nov 06,, 22:44
Dmitriy, I'm completly agree with you.

Glad to hear that.

Can someone provide me numbers of how many lift the Mi-28's wings provide.
I know that in horizontal flight 25-30% lift of total lift is provided by the wing s of the Mi-24.

GGTharos
22 Nov 06,, 00:10
Yes, they will execute their counter air drill, destroy their own choppers, drink couple litters of vodka (they would think that they are glitching), and then commit suicide =) ;)


I think you had a little too much vodka ;)

GGTharos
22 Nov 06,, 00:13
Hehe, da.
Mne tozje otchen nravitsa Mi-24, no dvatsatvosmoj zdelan tolka dla boya.
And when people have to admit that the Mi-28 is better than apach then some people try to claim that the 28 was develloped later than the apache.
What is not true.

'People' don't have to admit to anything. Right now the Mi-28 is the only Russian heli to 'catch up' with Apache - it is probably better in some things, likely worse in some others.

It remains to be seen wether it will be a hangar queen like the Apache - russians had time to design that out, so good luck to that ;)

Ruskiy
22 Nov 06,, 07:08
'People' don't have to admit to anything. Right now the Mi-28 is the only Russian heli to 'catch up' with Apache - it is probably better in some things, likely worse in some others.

It remains to be seen wether it will be a hangar queen like the Apache - russians had time to design that out, so good luck to that ;)

Thanks, but actually KA-50 is equal to Apache, MI-28 boots KA-50 easily which means that Apache is not so good. But actually Apache is combat proved...

GGTharos
22 Nov 06,, 08:05
Thanks, but actually KA-50 is equal to Apache,


No it isn't. Who told you that? :)
Apache is much better in terms of avionics.



MI-28 boots KA-50 easily which means that Apache is not so good. But actually Apache is combat proved...

I think because Mi-28 has newer construction it probably does better than Apache in a number of departments, but Apache electronics are likely better.

canoe
22 Nov 06,, 14:16
Thanks, but actually KA-50 is equal to Apache, MI-28 boots KA-50 easily which means that Apache is not so good. But actually Apache is combat proved...

As I understand it, the Apache has better avionics leading to better sensor data, weapon accuracy and automation of flight systems.

Thanks its its very accurate weaponary as well as its ability to detect and automatically identify then destroy targets as a tank killer the Apache Longbow with a load of Hellfires still has no peer.

In other areas the Mi-28 and KA-50 would probably do just as well or perhaps better. As you stated though the Apache has a very robust battle record, thus far the KA-50 still has to prove itself, war has a funny way of highlighting ever imaginable fault with a peice of kit.

Qnext
22 Nov 06,, 16:07
Sorry i dont have information about it :frown:

Ruskiy
22 Nov 06,, 16:21
No it isn't. Who told you that? :)
Apache is much better in terms of avionics.



I think because Mi-28 has newer construction it probably does better than Apache in a number of departments, but Apache electronics are likely better.

In 2001 on comparing flights of Apache and Night Hunter in Sweeden MI-28N showed itself a lot better than Apache and Sweedish had to admit that 28 is better.

Дмитрий
22 Nov 06,, 21:09
...the Apache Longbow with a load of Hellfires still has no peer.

Well The Mi-28 can carry more weapon load than a Apache.
He can carry full load of 16 ataka or shturm AND 40 S-8.
Plus it's gun is more powerfull than the Apache's one.

And don't forget that the program suffered from funding problems and the fact that it was frozen.
Without those problems they could have upgradet it a couple times and then it would have been even better.

Like you stated that the comache was a very good heli but didn't entered in the air force because of the money, I can say that the lack of fundings prevented the 28 of being develloped in it's best version/ upgrades
That program was frozen for more than 20 years.If it wasn't frozen than there would be a even better variant of it today.

If we are comparing the basic 28 versus basic Apache.
Then it will be deffinatly the 28 who wins: larger payload, better defence and surviveability.
The Apache may have better avionics (basic vs. basic), but with avionics alone you won't come far, if you can be shot out of the sky by an old man's gun.
Versus a tank it may be very effective But that's not a real battle.
So has the 28 or even the 24 no problems of shooting at a tank from a distance.

The big difference is like a soldier with and without a bulletfree jacket. (apart from the avionics)

Ruskiy
22 Nov 06,, 21:28
Both MI-28 Night Hunter and MI-24 Hind doesn't have any prodlem in a combat situations.
Here's the proof:

MI-28N

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4791871839437459953&q=Mi-28

MI-24H

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2082049458548608913&q=MI-24

By watching those videos I'd say thet MI-28 and MI-24 are better than even KA-50
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2586386557195875241&q=KA-50

Those MIL's babies can handle a lot and 24th handeled almost every war since the end of 1970s.
28th will handle the same as his bro did, the only reason betwen them (why 24th fought and 28 didn't?) is that 28th project was frozen shortly after start, 24th went out later and only in the middle of 90th Russia had unlocked 28th Mil and wormed it with its completion.

Дмитрий
22 Nov 06,, 22:05
Both MI-28 Night Hunter and MI-24 Hind doesn't have any prodlem in a combat situations.
Here's the proof:

MI-28N

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4791871839437459953&q=Mi-28

MI-24H

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2082049458548608913&q=MI-24

By watching those videos I'd say thet MI-28 and MI-24 are better than even KA-50
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2586386557195875241&q=KA-50

Those MIL's babies can handle a lot and 24th handeled almost every war since the end of 1970s.
28th will handle the same as his bro did, the only reason betwen them (why 24th fought and 28 didn't?) is that 28th project was frozen shortly after start, 24th went out later and only in the middle of 90th Russia had unlocked 28th Mil and wormed it with its completion.


Indeed the Mi-24 served in olmost 30 conflicts.

About the Ka-50 I have to disagree, cause the Ka-50 is still a very powerfull craft.
Neverless the Mi-24 and the 28 are olso very good machines.
They all have a place in my heart.
The MiL's ofcource can handle much more payload.
It's just butyfull to see them shooting all those 57 and 80 mm rockets, and especially the Shturm or Ataka

Firral
22 Nov 06,, 22:23
Indeed the Mi-24 served in olmost 30 conflicts.

About the Ka-50 I have to disagree, cause the Ka-50 is still a very powerfull craft.
Neverless the Mi-24 and the 28 are olso very good machines.
They all have a place in my heart.
The MiL's ofcource can handle much more payload.
It's just butyfull to see them shooting all those 57 and 80 mm rockets, and especially the Shturm or Ataka

Ka-50 and Mi-28 it is helicopters a little different purpose. Mi-28 is the front helicopter intended for support of armies. Ka-50 suits for small operations, such as anti-guerrilla actions, etc.

Ruskiy
23 Nov 06,, 07:23
Ka-50 and Mi-28 it is helicopters a little different purpose. Mi-28 is the front helicopter intended for support of armies. Ka-50 suits for small operations, such as anti-guerrilla actions, etc.

Pretty true, actually MIL's family is all made for the front aviation accept MI-8 which is most transport helo but still one of the most popular transporters in the front lines of the battles...

Garry
23 Nov 06,, 15:23
Guys, I doubt that Apache was shot down by a rifle... it was a propaganda move by Saddam. Yet it was shot down.... and by some AAA....

In my amateur view both Kamov and Mi-28N are much beter platforms for upgrades than Appache... However.... both need some radar guided missiles... and not beam guided. lazer beamed weapons is getting obsolete.

Firral
23 Nov 06,, 16:52
Guys, I doubt that Apache was shot down by a rifle... it was a propaganda move by Saddam. Yet it was shot down.... and by some AAA....

When I saw this old man, with a rifle of 19-th century, hit the Apache, I very long laughed. Certainly it cannot be the truth.:biggrin:

Дмитрий
23 Nov 06,, 18:07
Guys, I doubt that Apache was shot down by a rifle... it was a propaganda move by Saddam. Yet it was shot down.... and by some AAA....

In my amateur view both Kamov and Mi-28N are much beter platforms for upgrades than Appache... However.... both need some radar guided missiles... and not beam guided. lazer beamed weapons is getting obsolete.

Doubting does not get us somewhere near truth.
I can doubt, you can doubt, we all can doubt.
That is something subjectif.
What we need are facts.That will lead us more to the truth than doubting or thinking (you don't have to think, you have to know!).
Facts are more plausible than subjective statements.
And it is a fact (everybody has to agree) that the Mi-28 is better defended by his armour.
We are speaking here of 50mm bulletproof resistant windows and titanium and ceramic armour panels, not some plastic.

Ruskiy
23 Nov 06,, 20:47
However, MI-28N is bette armores, payloaded, uglier. Those are 3 main things about any chopper that are determining its power on the battlefield.

GGTharos
24 Nov 06,, 00:11
Doubting does not get us somewhere near truth.
I can doubt, you can doubt, we all can doubt.
That is something subjectif.
What we need are facts.That will lead us more to the truth than doubting or thinking (you don't have to think, you have to know!).
Facts are more plausible than subjective statements.
And it is a fact (everybody has to agree) that the Mi-28 is better defended by his armour.
We are speaking here of 50mm bulletproof resistant windows and titanium and ceramic armour panels, not some plastic.

Sure, the Mi-28 is nicely armored. No one's disputing that. Is the armor more -useful- than what the apache has? ... I don't know. THAT is debeatable. ;)

Out of 30-40 AH-64's that flew intot he AAA ambush, only 2-3 went down in the field, the rest made it back to base. I'd call that rather well armored and reliable.

In addition, the Mi-28 might be able to lift more *weight*, but the Apache's guided weapon (The Hellfire) is a much better weapon that Shturm /or/ Ataka.

Дмитрий
24 Nov 06,, 17:29
Sure, the Mi-28 is nicely armored. No one's disputing that. Is the armor more -useful- than what the apache has? ... I don't know. THAT is debeatable. ;)

Out of 30-40 AH-64's that flew intot he AAA ambush, only 2-3 went down in the field, the rest made it back to base. I'd call that rather well armored and reliable.

In addition, the Mi-28 might be able to lift more *weight*, but the Apache's guided weapon (The Hellfire) is a much better weapon that Shturm /or/ Ataka.

Well I am sure that more apaches would be downed if we gave those rebels some stingers or grails in significant numbers.
Because you cannot say they really used any AA.
Maybe not even one.
You cannot say something is proven in his defence system if there was no impact on the defence.
(by this I don't mean that no Apache was beeing shooted at, but the Apache did not suffer much impacts of bullets or AA-systems.Something like a Apache being shot was rarely seen i Iraq)
And it was the Mi-24 who was called the devil's tank, not the apache.
I know the 24 suffered losses far more than apache, but that was due to the "good" american decision to support the Afghanis, alltough theAmericans self started a war agains them.(naturally they did not know that, but it is very ironic. First they supply them and afterwards they declared a war against them)
Do you think it would have been nice if the Iraqis would receive a large number of grails, supported by Russians.
Then there would have been a larger number of Apaches downed.
But since olmost no grail was used in Iraq, the armour of the Apache had "no purpose".

To summary my argument, the following simple question:

Do you need bulletproof jacket if no bullets wil be shot at you?

Stan187
24 Nov 06,, 22:48
Do you need bulletproof jacket if no bullets wil be shot at you?

Sure you do. Chicks dig flak vests. Watch for them to appear in the new Victoria's catalog next year :biggrin:


Can anyone here talk more about the Apache, specifically reliability, and generally what kind of design needs to go into a helo to make it less vulnerable.
I remember back during Kosovo everyone was making a big deal saberrattling like "yall serbs better watch out now and strike a deal, we got apaches coming" but then two of em crashed and the rest just got grounded.

Does this point to a general fault of apache reliability or did it happen because of the particular situation.

What is the US doing to increase reliability and survivability of the system, is anything in the Longbow package targeted specifically for this? Obviously a more aware helicopter pilot means more suvivability, but I'm talking about it ability to take hits and keep flying rather than avoid hits altogether.

Thanks

GGTharos
25 Nov 06,, 00:04
Well I am sure that more apaches would be downed if we gave those rebels some stingers or grails in significant numbers.
Because you cannot say they really used any AA.
Maybe not even one.
You cannot say something is proven in his defence system if there was no impact on the defence.


So you're saying that the Russian 23mm AA guns used against them were not real? They were there.
And do you understand the meaning of ambush? ...
Because I'm pretty sure a Mi-28 would go down if it was hit by a Stinger ;)



(by this I don't mean that no Apache was beeing shooted at, but the Apache did not suffer much impacts of bullets or AA-systems.Something like a Apache being shot was rarely seen i Iraq)


The apache has also participated in other campaigns. I have a picture of an apache rotor blade that had taken a 30mm round - and they didn't notice until the helicopter landed.



And it was the Mi-24 who was called the devil's tank, not the apache.
I know the 24 suffered losses far more than apache, but that was due to the "good" american decision to support the Afghanis, alltough theAmericans self started a war agains them.(naturally they did not know that, but it is very ironic. First they supply them and afterwards they declared a war against them)


Right, okay .. and? There's movies on YouTube of apaches being hit by SA-7/16



Do you think it would have been nice if the Iraqis would receive a large number of grails, supported by Russians.


The iraqis have a LOT of those weapons. A LOT.



Then there would have been a larger number of Apaches downed.
But since olmost no grail was used in Iraq, the armour of the Apache had "no purpose".


They were used. And the armor is not against the missile - once a missile is fired on you, all bets are off. Armor is against rifles and small AA guns.



To summary my argument, the following simple question:

Do you need bulletproof jacket if no bullets wil be shot at you?

Would you not wear all the protection you could if you went into a fight? Yes, you would. What kind of silly question is this?

Stan187
25 Nov 06,, 02:48
Can anyone answer my questions? Please...:frown:

Ruskiy
30 Nov 06,, 02:45
What is the US doing to increase reliability and survivability of the system, is anything in the Longbow package targeted specifically for this?


They do nothing, they just building 2 more if one gets shot.

Jimmy
30 Nov 06,, 03:11
Do you think it would have been nice if the Iraqis would receive a large number of grails, supported by Russians.
Then there would have been a larger number of Apaches downed.
But since olmost no grail was used in Iraq, the armour of the Apache had "no purpose".



S

Right, okay .. and? There's movies on YouTube of apaches being hit by SA-7/16



The iraqis have a LOT of those weapons. A LOT.



Just to piggyback on this...the SA-7 was so effective that they gave up and went to unguided RPGs to try to hit helos. Doesnt that tell you something?

Edit: I think I'm gonna play some Battlefield 2 now. I'll let you guys know what I find out.

GGTharos
30 Nov 06,, 03:18
The 7 is a documented POS using an uncooled seeker - it got like 1 hit in 13 launches or something - its replacement it much more realiable in that respect :)

In any case, so if you're saying these things haven't been hitting a whole lot, I'll agree. ;)

I've even seen videos of these things hitting Hinds though, so I really don't know what these guys are on about.

Ruskiy
04 Dec 06,, 21:13
Edit: I think I'm gonna play some Battlefield 2 now. I'll let you guys know what I find out.

Which nickname do you have in the Battlefield 2?

Jimmy
05 Dec 06,, 04:31
Which nickname do you have in the Battlefield 2?

Godholio

Edit:VVV I'll keep an eye out for ya.

Ruskiy
05 Dec 06,, 04:55
Godholio

I'm playing that game too, sometimes, not often, nickname TroubleFromRUSSIA

zraver
05 Dec 06,, 06:53
Stan.
The Apaches that crashed in Albania near Kosovo were not set up for high altatitude operations. there is a video out there that shows one of them suddenly losing it's lift and dropping straight down luckily it autorotated. The other losts its lift, flipping upside down, and pancaking into the ground kiling the crew. All in all it was a worthwhile deployment and the US learned alot about using helos in thin air that has paid huge dividends in Afghanistan.

The apache is armored agaisnt 23mm machine canon (ZSU-23-4 rounds) but no aircraft can really survive a terminal velocity crash.

The longbow is a targetign system for use with the newest generations of hellfires. It allows a single AH-64D or Kiowa warrior to provide targeting data for an entire group of helos while still behind trees, a building or a hill crest. who can then launch form behind cover themselves and then depart the area with the enemy never having seen them. It is the ultimate ambush system

Stan187
05 Dec 06,, 16:11
Stan.
The Apaches that crashed in Albania near Kosovo were not set up for high altatitude operations. there is a video out there that shows one of them suddenly losing it's lift and dropping straight down luckily it autorotated. The other losts its lift, flipping upside down, and pancaking into the ground kiling the crew. All in all it was a worthwhile deployment and the US learned alot about using helos in thin air that has paid huge dividends in Afghanistan.

The apache is armored agaisnt 23mm machine canon (ZSU-23-4 rounds) but no aircraft can really survive a terminal velocity crash.

The longbow is a targetign system for use with the newest generations of hellfires. It allows a single AH-64D or Kiowa warrior to provide targeting data for an entire group of helos while still behind trees, a building or a hill crest. who can then launch form behind cover themselves and then depart the area with the enemy never having seen them. It is the ultimate ambush system

Yeah I remember seeing that video, that was pretty shocking. I didn't know that the lessons from the Balkans were integrated before Afghanistan, that at least makes me feel somewhat better.

omon
13 Dec 06,, 15:49
not every mi 24 that was hit by a stinger went down and crashed, most of them got damaged and autorotated, there was one (published) incedent when a granade blew up inside a belly of mi24 it killed every one inside but pilots and chopper safely landed.

when soviets went to afgan in 1979 there were mudjahadines armed with 19 century rifles(before america started helping them) that were almost 6 feet long, and they did shoot thru btr60 armor. so it,s not that unusual that apache got hit with old rifle, shot placment is the key, hit the transmission, or a control arm at the hub(or anything critical part) don't need to shoot it to pieces just one damaged berring or unbalanced part , any chopper would go down

Stan187
13 Dec 06,, 20:00
not every mi 24 that was hit by a stinger went down and crashed, most of them got damaged and autorotated, there was one (published) incedent when a granade blew up inside a belly of mi24 it killed every one inside but pilots and chopper safely landed.

when soviets went to afgan in 1979 there were mudjahadines armed with 19 century rifles(before america started helping them) that were almost 6 feet long, and they did shoot thru btr60 armor. so it,s not that unusual that apache got hit with old rifle, shot placment is the key, hit the transmission, or a control arm at the hub(or anything critical part) don't need to shoot it to pieces just one damaged berring or unbalanced part , any chopper would go down

But its quite a bit more unlikely to hit a moving chopper than a moving BTR, wouldn't you say?

glyn
13 Dec 06,, 20:37
But its quite a bit more unlikely to hit a moving chopper than a moving BTR, wouldn't you say?

Having been brought down myself by a tribesman with a far from modern rifle when I thought I was out of range, I can tell you the natives are crack shots with these heirlooms.

omon
13 Dec 06,, 21:18
But its quite a bit more unlikely to hit a moving chopper than a moving BTR, wouldn't you say?

it all depends on a distance, chopper position(the best one behind, shoot the tail rotor gearbox if you can hit it),and most importantly skills of the shooter. the blackhawks in mogadishu were shot from no more than 100 yards, while hovering, any long arms would shoot them, may be not as fast as rpg explosion but they most likely would have to crashland. or you might empty the whole mag at it and it wouldn't hit any critical parts then it'll just fly away.
anything is posible. life is stranger than fiction.

Stan187
13 Dec 06,, 22:08
it all depends on a distance, chopper position(the best one behind, shoot the tail rotor gearbox if you can hit it),and most importantly skills of the shooter. the blackhawks in mogadishu were shot from no more than 100 yards, while hovering, any long arms would shoot them, may be not as fast as rpg explosion but they most likely would have to crashland. or you might empty the whole mag at it and it wouldn't hit any critical parts then it'll just fly away.
anything is posible. life is stranger than fiction.

Yeah thats why I mentioned moving. Obviously a hovering helo is not much harder to hit that most other stationary targets. Give me a good rifle and I can bring down a hovering helo from 100 yards away.

Stan187
13 Dec 06,, 22:09
Having been brought down myself by a tribesman with a far from modern rifle when I thought I was out of range, I can tell you the natives are crack shots with these heirlooms.

Sorry glyn, didn't mean to strike that nerve again. ;)

Garry
14 Dec 06,, 08:23
not every mi 24 that was hit by a stinger went down and crashed, most of them got damaged and autorotated, there was one (published) incedent when a granade blew up inside a belly of mi24 it killed every one inside but pilots and chopper safely landed.

when soviets went to afgan in 1979 there were mudjahadines armed with 19 century rifles(before america started helping them) that were almost 6 feet long, and they did shoot thru btr60 armor. so it,s not that unusual that apache got hit with old rifle, shot placment is the key, hit the transmission, or a control arm at the hub(or anything critical part) don't need to shoot it to pieces just one damaged berring or unbalanced part , any chopper would go down

Hi Omon! you are quite right. In fact out of 300+ helicopters lost in Afganistan by Soviet army very few were actually brought down by Stingers and many by rifles/machine guns/RPGs.

I remember I was watching Discovery where they stated that STINGERS were the MAJOR ISSUE which brought USSR out of Afganistan :) however they never stated any statistics.... Around 5.7% of all killed died in aircraft crash and only 300+ helicopters were lost to all reasons (as well as 43 fixed wing aircraft, including 20+ destroyed on the ground). It was nothing for USSR... But Discovery continues spreading thins MYTH

US Army has lost 5000+ helicopters in Vietnam and 8.5% of all KIA died in a helicopter crash.... But and still this was not a reason why they left!!!

Stan187
14 Dec 06,, 16:57
Hi Omon! you are quite right. In fact out of 300+ helicopters lost in Afganistan by Soviet army very few were actually brought down by Stingers and many by rifles/machine guns/RPGs.

I remember I was watching Discovery where they stated that STINGERS were the MAJOR ISSUE which brought USSR out of Afganistan :) however they never stated any statistics.... Around 5.7% of all killed died in aircraft crash and only 300+ helicopters were lost to all reasons (as well as 43 fixed wing aircraft, including 20+ destroyed on the ground). It was nothing for USSR... But Discovery continues spreading thins MYTH

US Army has lost 5000+ helicopters in Vietnam and 8.5% of all KIA died in a helicopter crash.... But and still this was not a reason why they left!!!

The reasons for getting in and out of Afghanistan for the Soviets were much the same as the Americans' reasons for getting in and out of Vietnam. Idiot politicians who didn't understand how to properly use the military.

omon
14 Dec 06,, 22:34
and also very few mi 24 were shotdown in afgan. it were mi 8, mi 6, and mi 4. they took most of the beating, soft skinned transport. later pilots of mi 8 and other soft skiners, used bulletproof vests to line interior of pilot cabin, it,s still done in chechnia.

Stan187
14 Dec 06,, 23:35
and also very few mi 24 were shotdown in afgan. it were mi 8, mi 6, and mi 4. they took most of the beating, soft skinned transport. later pilots of mi 8 and other soft skiners, used bulletproof vests to line interior of pilot cabin, it,s still done in chechnia.

Exactly, plus the transport choppers were better targets of opportunity. Kill em, and you just killed a bunch of Russians. Miss em, and you walk away. The usually were not armed enough to effectively return fire.

If you miss an Hind, its likely to follow that pretty white smoke trail right back to your donkey-mounted MANPADS, and obliterate you.

Garry
15 Dec 06,, 12:41
Exactly, plus the transport choppers were better targets of opportunity. Kill em, and you just killed a bunch of Russians. Miss em, and you walk away. The usually were not armed enough to effectively return fire.

If you miss an Hind, its likely to follow that pretty white smoke trail right back to your donkey-mounted MANPADS, and obliterate you.

:) If I were them, I would specialize only on transports then

Gaskin
27 Dec 06,, 12:16
I don't mean to ruin the conversation about Hinds, but i just wanted to get back to the Kamov vs a-10 A2A combat... Everybody seems to compare R-73s to AIM-9s, but what about the Shturm/Vikhr missiles, arent they able to kill airborne targets too?

Garry
27 Dec 06,, 15:22
I don't mean to ruin the conversation about Hinds, but i just wanted to get back to the Kamov vs a-10 A2A combat... Everybody seems to compare R-73s to AIM-9s, but what about the Shturm/Vikhr missiles, arent they able to kill airborne targets too?

Well... the success probability is quite low... they are lazer guided.... and fast moving target would be problem. So they could kill a hanging helo... but again with low chance. R-73 would kill with 90% probability within 10km range if it is should in proper condition

GGTharos
27 Dec 06,, 16:03
I'm not sure where you get this 90% probability crap.

The R-73, or any missile, is typically pretty successful WHEN UNOBSERVED.
However, if it IS observed, it's a sucker for flares, and a number of helis now employ automated missile launch detection and countermeasures systems - the R-73 is old, it' heavy, and it has no place on a heli. The Ka-50 ain't gonna be arming any. IF it gets AAMs, it'll be a similar deal to Apache's (completely unused) stinger stacks.
The Ka-50's purpose is ground attack, as is any helicopters, NOT A2A. That isn't even a secondary role, it's like the last on the combat applications list, in the 'desperate' column.

The Vikhr and Shturm both have air to air modes which allow them to attack low LOS-rate targets, and they will be fairly successful against helis that aren't moving particularely fast (or if they are, then head on or tail on). Hellfire might well fare better in this case due to proportional navigation and guiding to laser reflection instead of riding a beam.

Gaskin
27 Dec 06,, 16:36
This one may be stupid but I was wondering whether the laser-guided Shturm/Vikhr' could be guided by helmet-mounted sight, which is used to move the gun. It may be exotic but it would sure as hell a last resort if anything else fails.

Well, maybe not the last, since there's always the ejection seat :biggrin:

GGTharos
27 Dec 06,, 17:25
Nope, it cannot. The missile has to ride the beam, and you could 'guide' the beam a whole lot faster than the missile can correct for it if you used a helmet - result: Missile out of beam and no longer guided. In addition, when you first launch the missile, you must have the sights aligned dead ahead so that the missile can capture the beam.

y_raj
27 Dec 06,, 19:21
I'm not sure where you get this 90% probability crap.

The R-73, or any missile, is typically pretty successful WHEN UNOBSERVED.
However, if it IS observed, it's a sucker for flares, and a number of helis now employ automated missile launch detection and countermeasures systems - the R-73 is old, it' heavy, and it has no place on a heli. The Ka-50 ain't gonna be arming any. IF it gets AAMs, it'll be a similar deal to Apache's (completely unused) stinger stacks.
The Ka-50's purpose is ground attack, as is any helicopters, NOT A2A. That isn't even a secondary role, it's like the last on the combat applications list, in the 'desperate' column.

The Vikhr and Shturm both have air to air modes which allow them to attack low LOS-rate targets, and they will be fairly successful against helis that aren't moving particularely fast (or if they are, then head on or tail on). Hellfire might well fare better in this case due to proportional navigation and guiding to laser reflection instead of riding a beam.
what if the missile does not follow a heat signature . I heard that new versions of aim 9 follow a 3-d image of target

GGTharos
27 Dec 06,, 19:57
what if the missile does not follow a heat signature . I heard that new versions of aim 9 follow a 3-d image of target

How do you follow any sort of 3D imagine with a planar array? ;)

THE AIM-9X is an *imaging* infra red missile. It can still fall for flares at the right distance (ie. far away) when the flare might look like the aircraft and for some reason the kinematic discrimination model fails, however if one of those is shot as you, you can basically kiss it goodbye if you're in a heli.

GGTharos
31 Dec 06,, 20:41
Incidentally, for the most realistic Ka-50 simulator, look at http://lockon.ru :D