Black Shark 3?

If u have to swap vikhrs for iglas' than thats gon suck

Yep. No point in having iglas if you lose valuable A-G ordnance.

And, no, we'll probably never know if the Russians put 3 pylons on a Ka-50 ( except maybe the Ka-50-2, which did have 3 pylons) as I don't think they've shown us more than a very small percentage of all the prototypes they came up with. We just know the end result was the Ka-52.

However, we do know that the Ka-50N and the Ka-50sh did have FLIR.

And that's what I'm looking for in an update. 3rd rail Vhikers and FLIR.

:lol:

S_RYIylWEp4

 

:lol:

Fixed

Lol, Yeah, my side pretty much ignores yours too. :)

Especially your petty insults that bring nothing to the debate.

Lol, Yeah, my side pretty much ignores yours too. :)

I think you misunderstood the joke. He's suggesting you're like Eddie Murphy, you're just not listening to everyone else here (some with a lot of inside knowledge!). Not that he refuses to listen to you. I think we've all listened to you now, and know already what your thoughts are on this.

Best thing to do is just wait. We get what we get. Let's be happy the modules getting a fresh lick of paint. :thumbup:

Well said, Fri.

 

From what I have summed up searching over the internets for the last 11 years on the Ka-50, and mostly over the last few years, is that there seems to have been MANY prototypes. We are seeing only the few that they wanted to show the world. They seem to have experimented like crazy (which is what the Russian's always seem to do ), and in the end, after it seems they lengthened the wings and added the third rail for igla, they decided they needed a two man cockpit, and made the Ka-52.

As far I have found out, is that the two man cockpit was a result from the requirement to have a change to sell the KA-50 to the other countries like Turkey, China etc that has redundancy requirement via two pilots so if pilot gets shot by a small arm fire, the other can get the aircraft back to safe.

(not that the pilot life matters, as pilot being hit can be dead already, important thing in war is to get the expensive and effective weapon back to new operator. That is same thing as with any infantry, the man is not valuable but his combat rifle is. As well why the fighter pilots are not allowed to drop empty fuel tanks unless in emergency situation to avoid getting hit by a incoming missile and requires that extra G's. Otherwise you will fly even in the dog fight with the empty fuel tanks on if you can win in that configuration. This example was a case when Israel F-16's fly the surgery strike against Iraq nuclear factory. The F-16's were refueled in the air for full fuel flow as they didn't have any refueling in the whole mission. And the F-16 pilots were scared that on the moment they need to jettison the empty fuel tanks, there is high risk that fuel tanks will rupture the pylons or hit the tail or bomb load, but it was required calculated high risk for mission success. It was against the training and procedure. And lucky for them the F-16's didn't get hit by the fuel tanks when they jettisoned them at the low altitude flight. And same thing is with the engines in fighters and helicopters, they are not installed in pairs for the redundancy but for the power-weight reduction. This was example revealed by the F-14 designer that it is a misbelief among industry followers that two engines are there to offer redundancy if other gets damaged. But it is used two engines as you can make two smaller and lighter engines to have smaller weight and space requirements than one big and heavy engine.)

And for that the KA-50-2 was made, to get it accepted as choice to be bought because the decision makers could be sold with the idea that it is safer and better value for the money.

Even when the KA-50-2 was compromised by the pilots armor plating and armored windshields.

The same thing is example with the AH-64, AH-1, Mi-24 etc VS KA-50 and Mi-28. Where the first ones has only a armored tube (if even that) and then armored front windshield, that is the heading of the target that is being attacked and likely firing toward the helicopter. But the side glass etc are just soft plastic. Easily penetrable by the small arms fire. And that requires the pilot to quickly perform a evasive maneuvering when they get shot at from any other direction that directly front.

While the KA-50 and Mi-28 doesn't need to be scared as their sidescreens can take from 12.7mm AP to 23mm HEI-T from few meters. There are even nice videos of the Mi-28 cockpit armor testing in youtube.

In KA-50-2 that was compromised heavily for better visibility and lower weight a the cockpit was required to be extended. The similar thing is with the KA-52, side screens are compromised, but there is possibility that the sidescreens are slightly armored against small arms fire at the range, but can't be sure.

So the KA-50 was designed from the start to protect the pilot from the ground fire better than other helicopters. So the pilot can survive and get the helicopter to home. While with the others, they are compromised by armor and the other pilot needs to survive from the same attack to get it home.

This is as well same reason why the pilot and co-pilot cockpits are separated by the armored glass, so if the explosive rounds hits the other pilot, the pressure and fragment do not kill the other pilot as well.

Probably because they decided it was too hard for one man to fly and target (Which I TOTALLY agree with! ) and that they wanted to make a more spread out cockpit with a better layout. I think in the end, they ditched the Ka-50 for this reason. Made a few of the #25 or so, only because they were obligatorily contracted to.

In the tests they found that the pilot stress load was not different from a fighter pilot performing a BVR attack.

And I agree with that, as I spend more time head down in a F-18C and especially in F-14 (pilot) than I do in a KA-50. In KA-50 I am looking mostly outside, and the limiting factor really is the additional armor plating on the sides and the smaller window on the right. Otherwise on the cannon, rocket attacks I am looking outside, with missile attack I am on the range an using Skhval only periodically and now and then while the Vikhr is in the flight and full time if I am aiming through a small opening that I need to keep helicopter very still. Now and then I look at the ABRIS, mainly when managing already saved targets and check my approach while NOE and performing pop-up.

The only moment when I do find myself handling too much is the actual laser management while avoiding to burn it out with ranging targets. And that is fault in the DCS itself, not in the KA-50.

Reason is that in DCS that Skhval is not contrat based, so you can not lock it on everything. You need to have a unit ID or something special there to get a lock. Why people have hard time to lock on air target that is only contrast against sky etc.

And you will quickly burn out the laser by hit the lock button multiple time trying to get a lock on target. And then you wait laser to cool, keeping you exposed to the target longer than you would if you get lock on the first time!

So, what I do is that I will turn the laser Off before I lock target. I do first the lock, then I turn laser to get ranging if I don't already know I am at the range. But I might need to do either laser ranging or override launch permission to get Vikhr launched. And both of these are own non-HOTAS switches.

And as I fly in VR, and I only have the real HOTAS bindings in set on every module, I don't have anything in them binded that is not there in real HOTAS. And I use a Oculus Touch Controllers for everything else, as mouse is immersion breaker and slower than a touch controller.

So every time I want to turn laser On/Off or I want to set firing permission Manual/Auto, I need to move my hand from the collective and reach those switches (amazing experience when you can just touch with virtual finger these switches and they operate) and that is the moment when I have my eyes inside the cockpit doing something else than fighting and flying.

So when the DCS own Skhval "contrast lock" does not perform right, I am forced to do things that I shouldn't be required.

Otherwise it i very easy to fly. You have ABRIS, that no other helicopter has in DCS. You get not just a position in map but your flight path, your flight route, your targets and wingmen in flight and clear and easily readable digital map to show you all the terrain at glance. Something that no western aircraft can do a their map are just way too cluttered and inaccurate to read on haste, but better than paper maps.

The five buttons and one knob in ABRIS makes it far easier to operate than anything in western aircrafts. Few pages and knob with push function to move the cursor and marker, make the waypoint selections etc. The challenge there really is that it is not physical but touch controller is required to be tilted over center axis to get "right click". Again a ED fault as they can't allow us to have X/Y buttons as left/right mouse clicks! It would be far easier to just press button to get right click than trying rotate palm over 12'clock axis.

But that is as well that I am very familiar with the cockpit functions, and how to perform the different tasks. One key thing is to have a joystick that you can leave to be where you trimmed it to be, so no centering force at all.

And that is what makes the KA-50 feel like cheating, as it is so deadly and effective. I can avoid incoming missiles and arrows while MBT's are firing at me and same time target each of them one by one with Skhval and launch Vikhr's at them while I perform side slips, and snake approaches etc.

And that when I can do 50-60% faster than any A-10 pilot can do, and I can destroy 10-12 hard targets with Vikhrs and then spend a cannon and rockets to take out 12 other soft targets out, and that without much sweat.

The real dangers are three:

• A unrealistic AI gunner in any of the LAV-25 vehicles that act like a snipers with perfect firing computer calculating automatic lead and they don't have any reaction time.
   
  
• A MANPADS somewhere behind 10 and 2 clock. And that is what I am surpised that we get President-S, as it should fully deny all those missiles being surprising or a threat.
   
  
• A another aircraft to attack above or pop-up at bad moment. And again President-S to defend against IR missiles if the attack is not past above 45-60 degree upwards.
  

One of the things that I still fight against is the auto-hover, that sometimes works, mostly not. I can trim without any problems myself to perfect hover for hands-off hovering. Just with trimmer. But if I enable Auto-Hover, it starts to go crazy, slowly moving to some direction, turning randomly to either direction or just tilt and lose all the AP channels.

And then when it does work, it is like my trimmed hover but it works and I can even slightly move cyclic or collective and it doesn't react to it in its 16% limits, as it should.

If ED can fix these problems etc, it makes KA-50 even more deadly.

I would not take any other to my KA-50 as requirement. But sure it would help if I can just fly and let the other to do all targeting and long range spotting and I would just need to turn helicopter towar target for Vikhr launch. But it is not so huge benefit in my experience with KA-50.

What I really want to see is what the modern Ka-50 would have been, because I'm sure there are prototypes out there, with the slightly longer wing and third rail, probably everything in the Ka-52, minus maybe the radar and of course, the dual controls.

We do not know what there really are out, but lots of variants there were made and almost every airframe that met the performance levels etc has gone through so many changes that likely no one know all.

I am little in between about wishing that BS3 would be what KA-50 was designed to be, or then what the latest standard was.

Because eventually, ED will come out with modern Apache, and AH-1W, which are already very deadly opponents to the Ka-50 even as AI. We need a Modern Ka-50 that can survive the Modern Battlefield. Either that, or a Ka-52.

 

 

In the end, the Ka-50 never was anything more than an experiment, that became the Ka-52.

KA-50 was put on the production. Department of Defence made the order to have production to upgraded standard.

First there were prototypes, then from those prototypes there were made a serial production standard that DoD did order four of them. Two were funded by the Kamov itself, and two was not finalized as Kamov didn't have money. Kamov did this because they trusted that the KA-50 performance will lead to the decision to DoD order more.

In the chechen war where the two KA-50 and two KA-27/29 were performing trial in combat, after the combat, the pilots feedback was analyzed (FLIR, Datalink, CM, Skhval an ABRIS relocation and reordering etc) and taken as a starting point for a new versions. Then these variants that were in combat (#23 and #26) was used in Kamov and DoD trials to define a new upgraded standard. And after the trials, DoD ordered Kamov to produce a few KA-50 with this upgraded standard for full serial production.

But DoD did not fund the order. They cancelled funding. So Kamov did not have funding to do it itself, and project got killed in that. Three KA-50 were never left the factory where they were upgraded to the upgraded serial production standard.

Not until years later DoD came back and decided that they fund Kamov to start serial production of the KA-50 for the upgraded standard as agreed previously, and that Kamov will speed up the KA-52 design that it can start trials and get it to production.

S

And there are some informations out that there are 15 units of the KA-50 in combat operation in the full upgraded standard and some say that even 32 is active, but that should mean all the earliest prototypes and odd variants too, and rest are KA-52's.

What the our "Port #25" is by the DCS when ED has access to it when they started the "Black Shark" module development, is likely just like what it is, excluding few features they couldn't make because lack of their engine performance and capabilities (that then A-10C added, like MAWS etc) later.

So there are many KA-50' that are nothing like our KA-50, and far more advanced status and configuration. But just like other things that finally gets abandoned, they are likely in some warehouses or outdoors just waiting the servicing.

Personally, I'd prefer to fly the aircraft as it was flown in Chechnya, or at the very least a configuration we have photographic and documented evidence of.

Our KA-50 is #25.

After the official KA-50 tests in 1995, at 25.4.1995 First Deputy Defence Minister, A.A Kokoshin signed order to form a Combat Experimental Group (BEG) to include 4x KA-50's and 4x KA-29 converted for target designation.

Four KA-50 and two KA-29 were to be detached from Air Force and Army Aviation. And two KA-29 was to come from Navy Aviation.

Based to the 1995 order, Kamov proceeded to build #22 and #24 airframes, while one KA-29 was converted for the BEG group.

Later, two more KA-50 airframes (#20 and #21) were delivered to the factory to be upgraded to the serial production standard. But as Kamov did not have funding, these two never left the factory.

In 1997 the original two KA-50 (#22 and #24) with two KA-29 were returned and were tested heavily 25.9- 21.10.1997

17.8.1998 the KA-50 supporter General Vorobiev was killed during test flight after exceeding helicopter limit stated in manual. A blowback to KA-50 project.

29.11.1999 the Deputy Defence Minister and Armed Forces Armament Chief commanded to build a BUG (Combat Attack Group). At the time only one upgraded KA-50 (#24) left in the standard condition from the first chechen war. So prototype airframe was to be assigned to the BUG, our famous KA-50 #25, the fifth prototype. And this is the same airframe that was in the "Black Shark" movie.

The BUG airframes (#24 and #25) received a new upgrades, armored plates, ABRIS etc.

xx.12.1999-xx.7.2000 the BUG did perform flight and system tests and combat trials.

24.10.2000 the Chief of General Staff of the Armed Forces ordered BUG deployed Caucasus for second Chechen war.

Two KA-50's (#24 and #25), one KA-29 and one Mi-8 left to operation 3.12.2000 and arrived 26.12.2000.

1.1.2001 the first KA-50 reconnanse flight was performed.

6.1.2001 the first combat flights started.

16.1.2001 KA-50 #25 suffered blade damage. Did fly back to base to wait three weeks for replacement. BUG operated with one KA-50, one KA-29 and few Mi-24.

The feedback and experience resulted that few problems would be fixed in the serial production. Like display rearrangement and data-layout, adding FLIR, self-protection suite (President-S) and new Counter Measurement design. Most of these were performed after that to KA-50'.

20.7.2001 based to results from the Chechnya, the Air Force and Army Aviation Command authorized to modifications for BUG (#24, #25) to include these fixes.

1.8.2001 they as well recommended to upgrade the BUG to have one additional KA-50 (#23) to the two others (#24 and #25) that was to be made to upgraded standard. As well additional fourth KA-50 (#26) was to be delivered from the factory as upgraded standard. (And the KA-29 was to be upgraded to SAMSHIT).

Department of Defence (DoD) did not manage fund the project (upgrade the KA-50's #24, #25, #23 and #26 to upgraded standard) not in 2001 or 2002 and the planned designs did not take place.

The simulator was build, but after factory testing the Air Forces suspended funding and then cancelled the project.

Mi-28 got the funding and greenlight, KA-50 got forgotten.

Early 2005, Russian Defence Minister S.Ivanov issued decision to restart KA-50 serial production and accelerate development for the KA-52.

There should be 15 units of KA-50 in the upgraded serial production features, something that our KA-50, #25 (or #24, #23 or #26) did not receive at least before 2005.

If ED had access to the serial production upgraded KA-50 that is made after 2005, then it is not our #25 if it, or any of the other KA-50's has not been upgraded to the serial production version (FLIR, Self-Defence Suite, Counter Measurement systems upgrade, re-design of the avionics and targeting systems etc).

Our KA-50, #25, likely was already accessed and under modeling and programming at the 2005 (released 2008). And if the KA-50 was going to serial production as commanded, it is very likely that this is the case:

The #25 had not received the upgrade to the serial production that was commanded 2005, to include FLIR, Reorder of avionics, President-S etc.

As those were to be put in the latest KA-50 serial production versions.

Instead ED was given access to the last two flyable KA-50's, the #24 and #25 or just to the #25 that was still in the condition that was used in the Chechnya.

And that as the ED was not wanted to give access to the factory where serial production KA-50's were made. So previous upgraded version was allowed, a version that was used in the movie production etc, the fifth prototype.

Now if the Air Forces has taken the KA-52 in their main operation and left KA-50' out, or in small operation forces, ED might have had access to those new one, in production ones that has the upgrades (FLIR etc) that were authorized but not funded by DoD.

I urge caution. They already showed us the model that we're getting.

It is possible that not.

Everyone receives the 3D model and texture updated model.

That means as well that AI version of the 3D model will receive update.

But only those who pay for upgraded version, will receive the version that has IGLA and President-S upgrades.

Now, the model they show us, does show the President-S jammer towers. Just like this:

(interesting point that only one tower is in that).

There is as well one image of the KA-50 being towed on the taxi where it is partially covered but it has both UV/IR turrets installed.

But I can not find it now anymore. As I don't recall its port number.

But it was years ago as well used to request the upgrades, but ED then said "No" and many other fan was against that it is not the realistic etc.

Your ideas of the development of the KA-52 seemes misguided, in my humble opinion.

According to my sources, Kamov didnt "ditch" the KA-50. There simply was no orders on it.

And they didnt develop the KA-52 because "it was too much for one person to handle the KA-50"

According to the tests performed in Chechnya, the pilots were comfortable with the work load and the tests were very positive.

 

The thing is, Kamv wanted to develop a "Command and Reconissance Helicopter" and the lack of funds ment that they were not able to develop a completly new helicopter from scratch - but instead decided to modify the KA-50.

 

The Difference between the KA-50 and KA-52 is far, from as you deescribe (intentionally or not) just a second pilot.

The KA-52 has many, MANY systems that the KA-50 has not. As it was intended as a Recon & Command Helo, it has not only radar for both air and ground targetets, but also advanced systems for command, control and fire control systems.

.........

........

The extra workload of operating radar and FAC duties, ment that there was need for a second pilot - none of that is related to the workload in the actual KA-50 > it was the added systems that required it.

My understanding is that as KA-50 was designed to be flying in groups, and from the start of the whole trials in BEG and BUG it was designed to have KA-29 as command and target assigner helicopter, it was found that KA-29 was not suitable for the task as it is so lightly armed and armored, while two seater.

So the KA-52 was designed to be the mixture of KA-29 and KA-50, a command variant of the KA-50. And that would have meant that you have one KA-52 in a flight of three KA-50. Where KA-52 commands the KA-50's and participate combat as well.

But, as the market for buyers requires as well two pilots (KA-50-2), it was the reason why such variant would be required and then so on it is logical to add the weapon systems that makes the helicopter more capable (radar etc) and so on as there is second pilot in KA-52, it is logical that you prefer that helicopter over KA-50.

So many things lead eventually that KA-50 was demoted

I think you misunderstood the joke. He's suggesting you're like Eddie Murphy, you're just not listening to everyone else here (some with a lot of inside knowledge!). Not that he refuses to listen to you. I think we've all listened to you now, and know already what your thoughts are on this.

Now you are misunderstanding him, he said "too". You are now saying "YOu said what you wanted, now go away!", without will to question the history, design logics, cockpit layouts, modification, production orders etc.

Too many things just does not match.

Like currently the weapons station selector hat in the KA-50 collective.

- Outer

- Inner

- All station

All those three means there are just two stations, right (otherwise it would be Outer, Center, Inner etc?)?

But then why have "A-A Mode" in there? Currently it does same thing as pressing a A-A mode in the targeting configuration panel.

Since when does the designers place the same function to two different locations?

Even the ejection seats has top handles above head and handles between legs/side of legs that does ejection at two different ways.

It can't be a backup selector like example the AV-8B N/A pylon selector switches and then the digital one in MFCD!

Why doesn't it get deselected when pushed again Up? Why not cancel it when selecting Inner/Outer? When the deselect is required to be done from the same button top as enabling it as well?

These are from our KA-50 #25.

Does it look same?

Do you even notice what is different to this?

[ATTACH]211808[/ATTACH]

That port number is unknown.

1. Notice that datalink panel is under the wepons configuration panel.
   
2. That targeting system on left panel is relocated forward, further from the collective.
   
3. The counter measurement panel is brought to left panel, under targeting panel.
   
4. That the communications panel has moved near collective and has small digital LCD panel.
   
5. You have two TV's side by side, no ABRIS (and by photo look, it is one of the earlier ones)
   
6. On the right wall panel the oil pressure gauges are right of the second TV.
   
7. The engine fire buttons are all in tight four button grouping, instead two grouping.
   
8. The weapons jettison button order is RED, BLACK order, instead our BLACK, RED.
   
9. The overhead warning lamp panel ha two rows and fills the whole width of the cockpit, ours has two 4x4 light groupings.
   
10. Four warning light right on the Vertical Speed Indicator
    

How about compared to this?

• How ABRIS is the smaller version, more square one, instead full size as our?
  
• Where is the weapon jettison order again RED, BLACK
  
• The warning lights are all on left side of vertical speed indicator
  
• Counter measurements panel is on top right
  
• The engine exchauster panel has separation on buttons
  
• Engine panel is again on top
  
• no datalink panel
  

Lots of nice small changes are around the cockpit.

And I must say that I prefer a lot that one where datalink is below TV, the counter measurement panel is on left side panel, the targeting configuration panel is top of the left panel.

But I can't understand the reason to go for a smaller ABRIS or second TV? (Is that second TV for the second nose FLIR turret??)

Best thing to do is just wait. We get what we get. Let's be happy the modules getting a fresh lick of paint. :thumbup:

We get more than lick of paint if we get President-S via payment. But nice we get refreshment after now the current old cockpit look.

My respect for the very interesting discussion, please keep respectful so everyone can learn from it! I really like the Fri13 posts as they add a lot of value to the historical development and use of the Ka-50. Wish we can know more about the real combat use of the Ka-50 in Chechnya.

To me, it already is a mythical, fantasy version. Because it was never really produced, beyond 2 or 3 to wrap up a contract.

 

 

So, I'm fine with the longer Ka-52 wing and 3rd rail. Would also VERY much like FLIR, so the copter can have night attack abilities. I'm getting destroyed by just a few AH-1W's in Battle.miz . Against Apache's, it's a total NIGHTMARE! And they ALWAYS come at you. Against fighters, there is no chance of survival. They're farther away, giving you a chance, but you can't lock them up. So in the end, you're toast.

 

 

I'd be happy if they gave us the options for the third rail and FLIR on the "Special Page" or whatever they call it, where they have the option for "Rudder Trim". Then, everyone can fly what model they want.

 

 

Cause to me, the only REAL "Ka-5x" is the the Ka-52.

I really love this ideas, best of both ways of seeing the world.

 

 

There is as well one image of the KA-50 being towed on the taxi where it is partially covered but it has both UV/IR turrets installed.

But I can not find it now anymore. As I don't recall its port number.

 

You mean this one?

You mean this one?

That is not it.

It is a one that is going away from camera and camera is about 5'clock position from it and it is being towed by a truck. The front part is covered by a large canvas to hide its cockpit etc, but you could see from nose shape it is KA-50

Year ago it was possibly the only picture of the KA-50 that had the President-S installed on it.

And it was back then argued that it not a proof of KA-50 having such.

And I have faint memory that it was the #25 back then.

Good video to ka50

http://https://youtu.be/4pK5FBRIvco

That is not it.

 

It is a one that is going away from camera and camera is about 5'clock position from it and it is being towed by a truck. The front part is covered by a large canvas to hide its cockpit etc, but you could see from nose shape it is KA-50

 

Year ago it was possibly the only picture of the KA-50 that had the President-S installed on it.

And it was back then argued that it not a proof of KA-50 having such.

 

And I have faint memory that it was the #25 back then.

For the KA-50 benefit why it works as single seated:

To reduce the helicopter weight and hence improve its flying performance its

designers proposed a truly revolutionary solution: the operator-navigator was

excluded from the helicopter crew along with the systems ensuring his protection

and survivability. The concept of a single-seat helicopter was corroborated by the

experience of operating tactical attack planes and fighter bombers in which the

pilot successfully combines his direct functions with those of the navigator.

 

Essentially, the concept of a single-seat helicopter was substantiated as follows. A

helicopter needs to fly at extremely low altitudes (5 - 50 m) to approach the target

area with the minimum risk of being hit by the enemy air defence capabilities. The

Mi-24 experience proves that at the most critical stage of the flight the pilot is

steering the helicopter all alone because the operator-navigator is unable to

perform his duties at low altitudes. Upon his approach to the target area, the pilot

has to climb from 35 m to 70 m to engage targets along a 4-kilometre line of attack

over plain terrain and from 100 m to 245 m under mountainous conditions. At

such altitudes the pilot is unable to assist the operator-navigator in target

identification unless he is equipped with an independent sighting and surveillance

system.

But now if we add the KA-52 new capabilities that KA-50 lacks, radar. And we add there a well the KA-29 task, flight command and target assignment.

A one man more can observe the radar screen, assign the targets for the different flights and organize the attack.

So seeing that flight would be a three KA-50 + one KA-52, it would be the flight that does it.

On 6 July 2007 Igor’ Plugatarev provided an update on the process of selecting new

generations of helicopters.79 For several years heated discussions had been

conducted within Russian army circles on the comparative combat capabilities of

the Mi-28 (‘Night Hunter’), Ka-50 (‘Black Shark’) and the Ka-52 (‘Alligator’). The

dominant persuasion had been that the Mil’ helicopter was inferior to the Kamov

helicopters in many respects. Kamov had designed, constructed and tested the Ka50 and the Ka-52 during counter-terrorist operations in Chechnya.

 

It had been proposed that the two Kamov helicopters would partially replace the

well-tested Mi-24. However, a year ago production started on the Mi-28N in which

the Defence Ministry had a stake following the intervention of General Baluyevskiy

despite critical remarks from military fliers.80 Amongst the criticisms was the fact

that the rear propeller (rotor) does not have any protection and has low ground

clearance. In field conditions, especially in mountainous terrain, it could sustain

damage in landing. Secondly, the cannon is situated under the nose where body

vibration is at its highest. In firing the Mi-28N is not as accurate as the Ka-50 and

Ka-52. In practice it was not possible to stabilise the barrel during firing. Thirdly,

the machine has poor stability in a side wind. These problems will complicate the

use of the helicopter in mountains.

 

According to Plugatarev, the Defence Ministry believes two regiments will be armed

with Mi-28N before 2010 and by 2015 there will be 300 Mi-28Ns. BBC Monitoring

also carried a report from Moscow’s “Channel One Worldwide (for Europe)” on 8

July 2007 that there would be 300 Mi-28s by 2015. The report also quoted a Mil’

worker likening the Mil-28 to “a large computer, with its own intellect”. The

Deputy General Director of Mil’, Mikhail Korotkevich, did not confirm these

extremely optimistic estimates. Korotkevich stated that the MOD RF did not intend

to buy more than 10 x Mi-28N annually between 2007 and 2015, ie no more than

100 helicopters in nine years; and another source within the air force mentioned an

even lower figure of only 50. Kamov at the same time did not fare well either, with

only five Ka-50 and five Ka-52 planned to be bought by the MOD annually.

Possibly the crux of the matter was highlighted by Yevgenyy Matveyev;

“All the helicopters – both the Mil’ ‘hunter’ and the Kamov ‘predators’ are not

sufficiently adaptable to modern conditions. Helicopters are heavy and weigh over

10 tonnes, they were created for conditions on the front line and not for those wars

which are happening in Chechnya and Iraq. Therefore all three machines today

can only have a very narrow sector of combat usage and it follows that they cannot

cover the range of problems needed for defence capability.”

Plugatarev also noted one other hindrance to the success of the Russian helicopter

industry, namely, the fact that Russia does not have its own manufacturer of

helicopter engines. In response to a question from Matveyev about a decision made

at the level of the Russian President two years ago concerning production of

helicopter engines within Russia, Korotkevich stated that all engines mounted on

series-produced helicopters Mi-8, Mi-17 Mi-24 and Mi-28 were produced by the

Zaporozhye plant “Motor-Sich” in Ukraine. The Mil’ Klimov plant had mastered the

production of VK-2500 engines, but it was not a series-production plant and could

only produce engines in limited quantities which were supplied to the Rostov plant

and mounted on Mi-24s and Mi-28s. Korotkevich judged that it would be unlikely

that there would be any mass-production of helicopter engines in Russia for five

years despite optimistic assurances from manufacturers. Perhaps, he suggested,

the French company Turbomeca might step into the breach, with ambitious plans

to set up a service centre at Astafuyevo airfield Moscow and to fit out the Ka-226

with the French Arius engine?

But nothing more about that as it becomes state and foreign politics.

Questions over the type of helicopter suitabile for counter-terrorist operations such

as in Chechnya and the North Caucasus as opposed to general conventional war

have now been partially solved by the decision to provide Ka-50s and Ka-52s for

spetsnaz GRU brigades. However, the purchase of Mi-28 (Night Hunter) by the

MOD for the army purely on grounds of low cost will not satisfy military experts,

due to its inferior performance to the Ka-50 and Ka-52

So the military preferred KA-50 and KA-52, but Mi-28 was cheaper. Eventually lead more accidents and underperformance that KA-50 and KA-52 would have performed better.

But all three are too expensive to operate compared to attack aircraft, and a light helicopter with a reconnaissance capability and self-protection armament (like 20mm cannon) would be enough to call attack aircraft from neareat airdome in a 15 minutes.

Thanks for the effort, but that is KA-52, port number 46.

Good video to ka50

 

http://https://youtu.be/4pK5FBRIvco

That is a interesting video to me, as it has scenes I have never seen. Like SAMSHIT pod at 20:21 or funneling performance at 25:15, R-73 in a 52:56 mounted on KA-52 and lots of close takes etc.

Thank you for that.

Wow! Great information guys. Gonna take me some time to read all that! :p

Просто захотелось сделать свою модификацию Ка-50ED.

Кому Иглы не нужны может просто их не использовать. Также и на серверах.

 

Поскольку Су-25Т и Ка-50 изначально являются не строевыми, тестовыми ЛА, мы можем себе позволить поэкспериментировать с ними.

Translated: I just wanted to make my own modification of the Ka-50ED.

Those who do not need needles can simply not use them. Also on the servers.

Since the Su-25T and Ka-50 are initially not front-line, test aircraft, we can afford to experiment with them.

Was this already know? Doesnt sound good to me atleast. And apparenly ka50 never had iglas as far as ED knows.

Also we will probably hear more info in autumn he said.

<…>

[ATTACH]211808[/ATTACH]

 

That port number is unknown.

 

1. Notice that datalink panel is under the wepons configuration panel.
   
2. That targeting system on left panel is relocated forward, further from the collective.
   
3. The counter measurement panel is brought to left panel, under targeting panel.
   
4. That the communications panel has moved near collective and has small digital LCD panel.
   
5. You have two TV's side by side, no ABRIS (and by photo look, it is one of the earlier ones)
   
6. On the right wall panel the oil pressure gauges are right of the second TV.
   
7. The engine fire buttons are all in tight four button grouping, instead two grouping.
   
8. The weapons jettison button order is RED, BLACK order, instead our BLACK, RED.
   
9. The overhead warning lamp panel ha two rows and fills the whole width of the cockpit, ours has two 4x4 light groupings.
   
10. Four warning light right on the Vertical Speed Indicator
    

<…>

DCS BS2 Flight Manual EN, p.15-9

Bibliography and Sources

<…>

• Мазепов А., Михеев С., Зенкин В., Жирнов А., Ка-50 Армейский боевой вертолет. POLYGON. Авиационная серия. – М.: «Любимая книга», 1996.
  

<…>

ISBN 5-7656-0005-0, pp.117–121 (in English: pp.126–127). :)

Very, Very interesting history of the Ka-50 and a LOT of good points made!

I'll have to mull all this new info over.

Gonna have to learn to read Russian too, as it seems a lot of stuff is being said in the Russian forum that isn't being said here!

Sounds like Chizh is just suggesting kind of what I had said. Most of us can't afford over $1000 Hotas systems and VR / Track-IR, so it gets very difficult for us to fly and target at the same time. Then, to worsen it all, we can't even get the shkval to lock up the flying target. So, we need something that can target fast and easy, like an IR-Air to Air missile. Igla. R-73.

I would VERY much like to see what came about with that last modernization phase on the Ka-50 though. Looks like it go a whole new cockpit, and so one wonders, what was added.

… I would VERY much like to see what came about with that last modernization phase on the Ka-50 though. Looks like it go a whole new cockpit, and so one wonders, what was added.

Sorry, I do not speak English. This is Google Translate. On the Ka-50, practically nothing new happened. On the last 3 boards (factory No.3538054703003, tail No.27, tail No.28), there were places for the installation of an onboard defense complex, and the HMS "Obzor-800" system was missing in the cockpit.

This topic is getting REALLY interesting with deep insights on the different Ka-50 variations throughout the years. Well done!

No third pylon on the Ka-50 though :P

No third pylon on the Ka-50 though :P

Yep, so it would seem

Ok... Here is the solution to all this...

We should get a "#42" KA-50 that has the best of life, the universe and everything that all KA50's had in it. With at LEAST 3 wing pylons. On each wing of course...