Ka-50 Combat Effectiveness

How does the black shark compare to its Eastern and Western counterparts in the real battlefield? Would you rather have a Ka-50 or something like an AH-64A or a Hind supporting your ground troops to quickly kill a bunch of tanks and infantry? (Assuming all pilots are equally skilled)

...it depends on a actual situation on a battlefield :smilewink:

Long range tank and AAA killing with good visibility. (Killing tanks in as short a space of time as possible.)

The Ka-50 fleet only consists of a hand full of prototypes. Yes, they were used in real combat, but it is hard to judge the effictiveness from that. That every existing Ka-50 has different equipment doesn't help there either.

So, I guess, there is also a reason why that the Ka-52 was developed instead of the Ka-50...

And even if we just compare numbers, the Ka-50 would probably not be my first choice: 12 ATGM of the Ka-50 vs. 4 ATGM of a Hind vs. 16 ATGM of an Apache.

All in all, I would rather go with an Apache. And that although I REALLY love the DCS(!) Ka-50 and also although I think the Hind is a damn badass and intimidating helo. :o)

How does the black shark compare to its Eastern and Western counterparts in the real battlefield? Would you rather have a Ka-50 or something like an AH-64A or a Hind supporting your ground troops to quickly kill a bunch of tanks and infantry? (Assuming all pilots are equally skilled)

High Pilot workload would be a major concern, and possibly castrate it's effectiveness.

if under total air superiority as any gunship it would slaughter armor and other units, if under heavy enemy air superiority it wouldn't stand a chance as any other gunship also..

but to compare it with other gunships under same conditions i would say its faster,more precise for the role than western gunships..

same with frogfoot, it was intended to be used in situations that are bad, A-10 for situations where air superiority for A-10 is assumed.. and if its not? its not survivable at all..

For today ....its outdated.

But for its time its been the most modern in the World. And could have been very effective, especially the N/Sh version.

Kaktus: That's just incorrect. Both the A-10 and the AH-64 were designed with being deployed on the front lines of the Fulda Gap on day one of a WP tank flood in mind.

The A-10 would hardly fare well against fighters if it's caught in the open, but neither would an Su-25.

Definitely AH-64 over the Ka-50. Both it and the concept it's built around are well combat proven. It has two pilots which eases the workload and along with vastly superior sensors allow the to keep a good watch on their surroundings. The Ka-50 has neither of that.

I find the KA-50 pretty hard to fight in. While it has automated functions, they're not incredibly well implemented and the whole package feels like more of a "proof of concept" rather than an advanced design with all the kinks worked out. I guess that's why single seat attack helicopters aren't exactly common.

Kaktus: That's just incorrect. Both the A-10 and the AH-64 were designed with being deployed on the front lines of the Fulda Gap on day one of a WP tank flood in mind.

 

The A-10 would hardly fare well against fighters if it's caught in the open, but neither would an Su-25.

 

Definitely AH-64 over the Ka-50. Both it and the concept it's built around are well combat proven. It has two pilots which eases the workload and along with vastly superior sensors allow the to keep a good watch on their surroundings. The Ka-50 has neither of that.

You will never know what they have done with the KA-50 during its development.

And do you guys really think it will be less workload with another guy inside you have to lead, communicate and interact with.

You will never know what they have done with the KA-50 during its development.

 

And do you guys really think it will be less workload with another guy inside you have to lead, communicate and interact with.

Yes we think And know... One guy cant search targets And keep eyes out And fly same time so SA would go down to toilet. Its just hard fact that attack choppers need two crew. There no doubt of it.

Yes we think And know... One guy cant search targets And keep eyes out And fly same time so SA would go down to toilet. Its just hard fact that attack choppers need two crew. There no doubt of it.

Waiting for first DCS Doubleseat Combat Helicopter.

Apache would be my choice because of Hellfires and two man crew. Russian ATGMs are just not adequate in a two way shooting range because of long exposure time during guidance.

 

Definitely AH-64 over the Ka-50. Both it and the concept it's built around are well combat proven. It has two pilots which eases the workload and along with vastly superior sensors allow the to keep a good watch on their surroundings. The Ka-50 has neither of that.

The AH64 A (the one OP was talking about)? And what would be those "vastly superior sensors", if you please?

The AH64 A (the one OP was talking about)? And what would be those "vastly superior sensors", if you please?

FLIR. :P

I'm a big Ka-50 fan, though. I don't think one Ka-50 against one Apache is a fair comparison, necessarily—even prototype-level Ka-50s are somewhat less expensive per unit than serial production Apaches, and a pair of Ka-50s, with their quality datalink and autopilot, are at least as versatile as one Apache (judging by crew requirements). A single-seat attack helo gives you the ability to fly in tight pairs to gain back some of the benefit of two crew. One can focus on navigation and flight leadership while the other keeps his head on a swivel. Both have to fly, but the autopilots make that a little less daunting.

The real gain to the one-seat two-helos arrangement over the two-seats one-helo arrangement comes when the former splits up. With a forward scout and a weapons helo hanging back, you get enhanced versatility and the ability to look at a battlefield from two angles at once, things one two-seat helicopter can't do. It's not an ideal arrangement all the time, or in all circumstances, but it certainly has its advantages.

Apache would be my choice because of Hellfires and two man crew. Russian ATGMs are just not adequate in a two way shooting range because of long exposure time during guidance.

Not all hellfires are fire and forget only L version with millimeter wave RADAR. Russian ATGMs are faster and take less time to reach target then Hellfires.

You will never know what they have done with the KA-50 during its development.

 

And do you guys really think it will be less workload with another guy inside you have to lead, communicate and interact with.

So we are to attribute to the Ka-50 a bunch of technology we have no source to indicate it has, as well as having done things we have no sources for either? Sure, that sounds like a fair comparison.

Yes, having two pilots decreases the workload. If you think communicating with a single person in the same vehicle as yourself is hard, you have no idea about the workload that is flying attack helicopters. Or even monitoring the radios.

Waiting for first DCS Doubleseat Combat Helicopter.

You exaggerate the DCS flight sim community if you compare us with professional, real life pilots.

The AH64 A (the one OP was talking about)? And what would be those "vastly superior sensors", if you please?

Let's see. FLIR. So, the ability to do something at night. A decent FOV.

Every aircraft has it's strengths and weaknesses.. The Shark is a very capable aircraft in it's intended role as long as the situation is "reasonable" By reasonable I mean that there has to be some semblance of security regarding enemy air assets. (Air superiority.) This is no different for the Shark than any other attack helicopter... Either the Shark or the Apache are great choices as long as they are handled by well trained aircrew and flown in a manner that alleviates their shortcomings. (Shark has a single pilot so pilot workload is high, but the systems do an adequate job of alleviating this issue once again as long as the scenario is reasonable.) Workload on the Apache is eased due to the dual aircrew but the added complexity of the sighting system and such means that workload is still pretty high... Since none of us have actually flown the real deals, my OPINION would be that the Shark's workload would be a bit more than the Apache... Pure speculation but I think a reasonable opinion..

Weapons on the Apache are better suited to modern Anti tank use as the Vikhr is a bit weak for heavy armor whereas the Hellfire is a know quantity and works very well. Also, if you consider that the Apache carries more Hellfires than the Shark carries Vikhrs... And a modern tank may take 2 Vikhrs to kill it vs one Hellfire, the superiority of the Apache becomes even more apparent.

The downside of the Apache is mostly the costs invovled. I am guessing you could buy 2 or more Sharks for each Apache and so you are now into the age-old debate on whether it makes more sense to spend more money on fewer aircraft with better systems / weapons etc.. Or do you buy more warplanes with lesser capabilities and flood the skies... Either approach has it's merits and every contry has to decide which of those answers makes sense for their situation...

Neither option is a bad option in my mind... Just different and different considerations.. Either one can be made to be successful in skilled hands..

Interesting to see how the Hind is overall considered a non-factor here in this regard?

Russian ATGMs are faster and take less time to reach target then Hellfires.

But you need to face the threat until the end, not getting warned of being shot at (except for laser) and before that you had to find it without a FLIR while navigating and planning at the same time. That's too much multitasking in an outdated helicopter.

Apache can find the targets much more safely, plan a more effective attack, turn away after shooting and getting a warning if shot at. LOAL is also an option when the target is being lased by another source.

With modern technology the Ka-50 could be turned into an awesome one man fighting machine.

Interesting to see how the Hind is overall considered a non-factor here in this regard?

Nah the Hind is certainly capable, (I honestly forgot it was mentioned in the original post or I would have included in assessment.. Sorry..) Hind is a strange beast though.. I am a huge fan, don't get me wrong... but I personally don't think it compares as an anti tank platform due to the limited number of missiles it carries... It is a SUPREME anti personnel platform and the fact that it can carry troops as well makes it a very potent weapon for sure! Once again, it just needs to be deployed properly...

Apache can not fly over the mountains. The only NATO casualties in NATO military use over Yugoslavia were Apache pilots trying to get to Yugoslavia over the mountains from Albania.

Coaxial helicopter is more efficient, and if I am not mistaken can fly at higher altitudes.

Vihor, although outdated missile, has a slightly longer range and is faster then Hellfire. Also, Vihor can not loose the target because it rides on the laser beam.

Apache has two crew, and that is way better then a single crew Black Shark.

Black Shark was not built for night operations, therefore it can not be compared to a helicopter that was built for night operations.

Each helicopter, Apache and Black Shark are good combat systems.

Apache can not fly over the mountains.

That may be the case, but with a service ceiling of 6400 meters (though I doubt the veracity of that claim, as that is ~3/4 up Mt. Everest), it still beats all mentioned attack helicopters by at least almost 1000 meters.

AH-64A vs KA-50 vs Hind:

For fair-weather CAS and anti-armor with no fighter threat and minimal SAM/AAA, I'll take the KA-50 every time. Why? Vikhrs offer greater standoff range and less exposure time than Hellfires or Shturms. I can put two, maybe even three Vikhrs downrange in the time it takes one hellfire to get there. The Vikhr is also not susceptible to jamming, and has a multi-purpose warhead which enables it to take down infantry, light vehicles, and armor with the same degree of lethality.

Pure CAS in support of troops assaulting an objective? Hind with 120 S-8s. Why? excellent area suppression against infantry and IFVs with large ammo supply. Also, ability to insert a squad of soldiers and then provide direct fire support (Or clear a vital chokepoint and drop a squad in to hold it).

Night time battlefield ops? AH-64A. Why? Better night-engagement systems, as well as two eyes to spot targets and threats.

Now, if the AH-4D is on the table, then it needs to be balanced with the KA-52, in which case it has, at least on paper, identical target acquisition capabilities. KA-52 also shares the 2-man crew benefit, and retains the Kamov maneuverability edge. AH-64D can mount fire-and-forget Hellfires, which does up its survivability. Both helicopters are theoretically capable of hovering with only their mast-mount sensors unmasked and providing fire control and terminal guidance capability, though how well this works with Vikhrs is anyone's guess.

Personally, I'd take the KA-52 because I believe that Kamov produces a greatly superior airframe. However, I would concede that the AH-64D has a long-proven battlefield record in testament to the capabilities of it's advanced combat systems.

Apache can not fly over the mountains. The only NATO casualties in NATO military use over Yugoslavia were Apache pilots trying to get to Yugoslavia over the mountains from Albania.

They've been flying over other mountains just fine for years. What happened there was a training accident.