Kamov Ka-50 "Black Shark"???

**Garry** · 09 Oct 05, 18:53

Originally Posted by canoe

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/milita.../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, 23:19

"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/m.../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, 22:11

Originally Posted by canoe

"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/m.../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

Originally Posted by canoe

"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

Originally Posted by canoe

"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, 15:18

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, 16:32

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

P.S. Kamkov Ka-50 is best looking military chopter ever build.

**Garry** · 29 Aug 06, 11:34

Originally Posted by SRB

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

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

Originally Posted by GGTharos

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

Originally Posted by Garry

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.

Thread: Kamov Ka-50 "Black Shark"???

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

India grounds Kamov KA-31 fleet

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions