Military Review

Ka-50: long road to heaven

53
Ka-50: long road to heaven


17 June 1982, the world's first single-seat combat helicopter of the coaxial circuit - the future "Black Shark"

Russian helicopters, although they appeared a little later than their classmates abroad, from the very first years won a worthy place in stories world aviation. The records and achievements of the representatives of the two main domestic helicopter manufacturing companies - "Mi" and "Ka" - can be described for a long time. But in this row there is one helicopter that managed to overtake not only its time, but also to change the very idea of ​​what a military rotorcraft could be. We are talking about the world's first combat single-seat helicopter, which not only took off, but also entered service. True, this did not happen at all quickly: after all, for the first time the Ka-50 “Black Shark” took off from the ground on June 17, 1982, and it was adopted only on August 28, 1995.

Its appearance, as has happened more than once in the history of world armament, the Ka-50 owes primarily to its main rival - the American helicopter AN-64A Apache, which became the first combat anti-tank helicopter in the world. The Apache launched its first flight in September 1975, and a year later, on December 16, 1976, the Soviet government set the task to develop a promising attack helicopter, designed primarily to combat tanks enemy on the battlefield.

However, there was another reason for the appearance of this document, which played a special role in the history of the domestic helicopter industry. By that time, the first domestic combat helicopter Mi-24 had been used in the Soviet army for five years. But he, burdened by the amphibious compartment traditional for the Mile Design Bureau machines, found it difficult to truly effectively act on the battlefield. In addition, the classic longitudinal scheme with the main propeller over the fuselage and the steering on the tail boom did not allow the car to be sufficiently agile and speedy, especially in situations where it was necessary to quickly go from hover mode to flight mode. And most importantly, the Mi-24 was distinguished by its substantial dimensions, which with the increase in the effectiveness of the air defense systems of the battlefield became an increasingly important factor.

With all this in mind, the December decision of 1976 was issued, and for the same reasons, it was decided to develop a new car on a competitive basis. In the competition for the right to create a new, more effective attack helicopter for the Soviet army, two long-standing rivals joined in: the design bureaus of Kamov and Mil. At the same time, the Mi company had the advantage of a long-standing partner in the army: their helicopters were in service with the ground forces and the Air Force from the beginning of the 1950s, when the first Mi-4s began to enter service. The Ka company declared itself as a manufacturer of helicopters for the military much later, but louder: the Ka-1960 helicopter that it created in the early 25s became the first Soviet combat helicopter - namely a combat helicopter, and not a military transport one with combat capabilities. However, all serial military vehicles manufactured by Kamov were supplied only the fleet, and therefore work on a land helicopter was, for the Kamovtsy, in general, rather new.

But perhaps it was this novelty that allowed them to look at the task completely unbiased, outside the usual patterns and ways of solving problems. This is on the one hand. On the other hand, the Kamovians used the coaxial helicopter scheme that they were used to, which was still considered common for naval, but not for land vehicles. But not because they did not want to look for other options. Among the sketch proposals, there were also traditional, longitudinal helicopters, but in the end, the advantage was left behind the firm Kamov coaxial scheme. After all, it was she who gave the helicopter advantages, which turned out to be decisive for the machine, whose main task was to survive on the battlefield, fighting with a well-armored and armed enemy. The new helicopter, the first land combat helicopter in the world with a coaxial scheme, was distinguished by much greater thrust-to-weight ratio and, therefore, greater rate of climb and a large static ceiling, greater speed of movement, the ability to move sideways and even back at high speed, to perform many inaccessible pilotage figures . And most importantly - it became more compact and tenacious, because it did not have a tail boom with transmission mechanisms, the loss of which is always catastrophic for machines of the longitudinal scheme.

But Ka-50 developers didn’t stop at this innovation alone. In search of additional competitive advantages over the Mi company developers, they decided on another unprecedented step - and reduced the crew of the helicopter to one person! In fact, Kamovtsy developed a complete analogue of the fighter-bomber, only in the version of the helicopter. Even the hull lines of the new car were rather aircraft-driven, rapacious, and not traditionally heavy helicopter. And so that the only member of the crew of the new machine could cope with all the duties that the pilot and the weapons operator traditionally shared among themselves on other helicopters, Ka-50, which then still had a working index B-80, it was decided to equip - and also for the first time in Russian history Helicopter - highly automated aiming and navigation complex.


Cab Ka-50, 1982 year. Photo: topwar.ru

By that time, the domestic industry could well create such systems, although they, as a rule, were distinguished by somewhat larger dimensions and masses than their foreign counterparts. But it was precisely due to the fact that one person had to fly the B-80, and the space saved by refusing to accommodate the second crew member could be given under the electronics - and still win! Finally, another advantage, which gave the option of a single helicopter, was to reduce the cost of training and maintenance of flight personnel and reduce losses in combat situations. After all, the training of one pilot, even a “multi-operator”, ultimately costs the state less money and effort than two narrow specialists - the pilot and operator, the number of front-line units, and therefore their maintenance costs are also reduced by half, and make up for losing one person is easier than two or three.


Of course, the idea of ​​a single-seat helicopter provoked significant resistance from many military personnel — it was too innovative and too different from all of the world’s experience in combat helicopter construction and use. But the chief designer of B-80, Sergey Mikheev, did not accidentally answer all these objections with these words: “It’s not worth proving that one pilot works better than two, you don’t need to prove the unprovable. But if a pilot in our helicopter copes with what two will have to do in a competing helicopter, it will be a victory. ” And the designer Mikheyev and his team won this victory in October 1983, when at a meeting convened by the decision of the Commander-in-Chief of the Air Force Chief Air Marshal Pavel Kutahov and Minister of Aviation Industry Ivan Silaev summed up the first results of tests of prototypes B-80 and Mi-28. Most representatives of the aviation industry and military aviation spoke in favor of the Kamov machine, assessing its main advantages: a simpler piloting technique, a large static ceiling and vertical rate of climb, as well as a better ratio of efficiency and cost. The advantages of the B-80 were confirmed by the state comparative tests of new helicopters, which began in the 1984 year and lasted more than two years. Everything turned out to be proven: the efficiency of the coaxial scheme, the ability of one pilot to adequately cope with the duties of the pilot and the weapon operator, and the maneuverability of the vehicle, and the advantages of a high-tech aiming and navigation system. As a result, the four defense institutes that evaluated the test results, in October 1986 of the year, issued a unanimous final conclusion: consider it appropriate to select the B-80 as a promising combat helicopter of the Soviet army.

Alas, the further history of the helicopter, which resulted in the Ka-50 index, which is traditional for Kamov machines, turned out to be much less rosy. The process of preparing documentation and creating the first production copies suitable for conducting state tests, was delayed - and inevitably got into the tragic events of the beginning of 1990's. Despite this, in January 1992 began state tests, and in November 1993-th - military, held at the Center for Combat Use of Army Aviation in Torzhok. At the same time, the helicopter entered the international arena, and then for the first time in domestic practice! - even before its official adoption, he became the hero of the motion picture, which gave him his own name. The film “Black Shark”, in which the main role was played by Ka-50, was released on screens in 1993 year, and the order for the film, as claimed by its director Vitaly Lukin, made the Kamov Design Bureau itself — apparently with the aim of ensuring the promotion of its car not only in Russia, but also abroad. This, alas, was common sense: the development of events suggested that the company “Ka” might not be able to get a serious order in its own country ...

In the end, so, unfortunately, it happened. Although in the 1995 year, the Ka-50 was adopted by the Russian army by the presidential decree, there was only enough money for a dozen production vehicles. Soon, very difficult to explain events began: even after effective combat practice in Chechnya, when the Ka-50 fully proved its effectiveness and ammunition, it was decided that the army’s main rival, the Night Hunter Mi-28, would become the main attack helicopter of the army. And today it is still he who is preferred, although the appearance of the Ka-50 two-seater modification, the Ka-52 Alligator attack helicopter, still allowed the Russian army not to lose the unique car. However, such oddities in the history of this or that unique type of weapon are not uncommon, and history has repeatedly proved that it’s really worthwhile. weapon still be in the hands of those who deserve it. Even if it takes more than three decades.
Author:
Originator:
http://rusplt.ru/wins/vertolet-ka50-chernaya-akula-26305.html
53 comments
Ad

Subscribe to our Telegram channel, daily additional materials that do not get on the site: https://t.me/topwar_ru

Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. aszzz888
    aszzz888 18 June 2016 05: 58
    +24
    I am proud that the famous "Sharks" and "Alligators" are produced by fellow countrymen. And they produce very high quality! And the technique is really unique! good
    1. Achilles
      Achilles 18 June 2016 08: 52
      +38
      I consider the Mi-28N unworthy to occupy the first place in the ranks of military vehicles, explain why:

      Ask if there is a complex of optoelectronic suppression of anti-aircraft missiles on the Mi-28N, without which it is deadly dangerous to fly over the battlefield today?

      Ask if there is a radar station on board the Mi-28N that can illuminate the situation on the battlefield and indicate the location of the enemy to the crew?

      Ask if there are elements of network-centric combat control on board the Mi-28N, without which in a modern battle no combat unit can interact in a coordinated manner?

      Ask if there is a missile defense system on board the Mi-28N from enemy aircraft, without which an army helicopter simply cannot live in modern combat?

      Well, and finally, ask if there is a system for jet ejection of pilots on board the Mi-28N that allows the crew to survive in the most difficult conditions?

      I answer: there is none of this on the Mi-28N.

      I supplement: all of the above are on Ka-52 helicopters, which today are still ranked among “secondary vehicles” by some high-ranking officials who are not able to replace the “main combat helicopter” in the troops.

      And one more fact: on all combat helicopters of the world there is a duplicated control system. This means that any of the two crew members can control the helicopter. This is the same guarantee of survival of a combat vehicle, such as, for example, armor. So imagine - on the Mi-28N there is no second control knob. In the event of a pilot’s wound or death, the navigator-operator (like on the Mi-24, Ka-52, Mi-8AMTSh, Ka-29TB, Apache, Cobra, Tiger, Agust and other combat vehicles) will not be able to bring the car to the base - because there is nothing . Is that the Milevtsi recently announced that they had begun production of a combat training modification of the Mi-28UB, on which the second control stick and the Mi-28NM would still be - the Mi-28N modernization project, the development of which began in 2009. In the course of it, an over-muzzle radar of type H025 was installed, as well as a duplicated control system, thanks to which the navigator-operator can also control the helicopter. But the MI-28NM has not yet entered service.
      I don’t want to cast a shadow on Mil Design Bureau, because their Mi-26, Mi-24, Mi-14 helicopters and, of course, Mi-8 are really amazing machines that hardly anyone can surpass.
      1. kugelblitz
        kugelblitz 18 June 2016 09: 08
        +1
        I heard the main criticism of the Mi-28, namely the weak gearbox. Although the reservation is decent, I do not argue. But it was the location of the pilots + protection of the tail rotor shaft that increased the reservation area and negatively affected the total weight of the car.

        That Su-34, that Ka-52 have a relatively small area of ​​protection for a double cabin.

        As I understand it, the problem is more in the deployment of radar, but on the other hand there is a development vector in favor of reconnaissance drones and ground reconnaissance equipment, i.e. the attack aircraft shine to a minimum, striking suddenly at maximum speed and then dump until the enemy comes to his senses.
        1. dauria
          dauria 18 June 2016 13: 10
          0
          I consider the Mi-28N unworthy to occupy the first place in the ranks of military vehicles,


          In fact, I'm tired of comparing two identical cars. Identical in almost everything. The idiocy of the situation is different, they both become obsolete (yes, actually, they are already obsolete) before at least a third of what happened in the USSR appears in the Russian Federation.
          data from Wiki
          Russian Air Force - more than 54 Mi-28N units, as of 2016
          Russia: More than 92 helicopters - as of 2016

          Boys from MO, throw a coin and choose one. More idiocy than 2 mottled cars of the same purpose can not be invented.
        2. EvilLion
          EvilLion 18 June 2016 14: 55
          +1
          It was originally laid in Ka-50. Intelligence in the conditions of the appearance of low-altitude air defense in the 70s became impossible for the drummer, and if so, then the tactics are reduced to an attack aircraft with an attack on previously explored. Well, double options, for commanders, so that they can steer without being distracted by shooting and training sparks.
      2. The comment was deleted.
      3. Manul
        Manul 18 June 2016 19: 31
        0
        Quote: Achilles
        Well, and finally, ask if there is a system for jet ejection of pilots on board the Mi-28N that allows the crew to survive in the most difficult conditions?

        Has this ejection system (on the Ka-52) ever been tested on living people? There is no ejection seat. There he pulls out the pilot by the "harness". After the ejection in the chair, injuries are possible, and after that it is really possible to remain whole?
        1. EvilLion
          EvilLion 14 October 2016 09: 30
          0
          The chance of being covered when ejecting to the grave for Americans is, for example, 10%. Even if everything went wrong, it seems. Because bailout is a very difficult and dangerous procedure. Here are just the alternative in the form of being left with broken bones in a crashed helicopter, which is stuffed with fuel and often catches fire, is somehow not impressive. In this case, you can fall in general behind enemy lines, even if you got out of it, then you won't go far with fractures. And as the "Berkuts" practically demonstrated right in front of the cameras, the shock absorption systems in the event of a fall, as it were, also do not guarantee injury safety. Gravity on Earth is still decent. About jumping out in a parachute at heights of 30-100 m, which is not uncommon for a combat helicopter, it is also not necessary to speak seriously, the catapult at least spits out upward, leading away from the burning car and automatically opens the parachute, which is dangerous to do with a normal jump, because sometimes the flame is thrown onto the dome, but there is no headroom.

          And yes, it’s not a problem for a helicopter to eject at speeds when the pressure of the incoming air flow is equivalent to hitting a brick wall, and therefore the overload during ejection is much less than on airplanes.
      4. ava09
        ava09 4 November 2016 17: 21
        +1
        I liked the comment, the questions are good, and indeed ...
        (c) I supplement: all of the above are on Ka-52 helicopters, which today are still ranked among “secondary vehicles” by some high-ranking officials, which are not able to replace the “main combat helicopter” in the troops (s)
        I think the effect would be if these questions were asked to "some high-ranking officials" not only of the military department, the investigator asked, maybe even within the framework of the "Case of sabotage." Ultimately - "sabotage", this is Treason to the Motherland. And the interests of one design bureau are being lobbied in our time not out of stupidity (although the fool factor is not excluded), but for the "grandmother" ...
  2. Alexander 3
    Alexander 3 18 June 2016 06: 03
    0
    Russian engineers have always created a worthy response to an opponent much cheaper and more efficiently than Western obrvztsov. The main thing is that their work would not be in vain.
  3. 1-Patriot
    1-Patriot 18 June 2016 06: 16
    0
    Thanks to him, one of the best films has appeared - Defiant and Admiration, Thank you!
  4. 25ru
    25ru 18 June 2016 06: 36
    +10
    Yes, the author would appreciate the consequences of such a decision. As anyone interested, the Ka-52 helicopters are produced by the Arsenyev Aviation Company Progress named after N.I. Sazykina. And here you are:
    http://primorye.ru/news/527080
    Text:
    Former high-ranking military official will manage the Arsenyev aircraft plant "Progress"
    As it became known to the Business newspaper "Golden Horn", the ex-Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Anatoly Serdyukov was elected to the board of directors of PJSC Arsenyev Aviation Company Progress named after Sazykina ”(Arseniev). The new composition of the council was formed at the annual meeting.
    Also, the first deputy general director of Rosoboronexport, Ivan Goncharenko, the deputy general director of JSC Russian Helicopters Roman Chernyshev and Vladimir Kudashkin, the director for personnel and operational development of JSC Russian Helicopters Yevgeny Kuzmenkov, the director for state supplies and military-technical cooperation of JSC AO, were re-elected. Russian Helicopters Vladislav Savelyev and Managing Director of PJSC AAK Progress Yuri Denisenko.
    The shareholders at the annual meeting also decided not to pay dividends for 2015 due to a net loss of 829,916 million rubles.
    Dossier of the "Golden Horn": The main activity of the aircraft plant "Progress" is the production of helicopters. At present, the aircraft plant is producing the Ka-52 (Alligator) combat attack helicopter, and is preparing the serial production of the Ka-62 medium multipurpose civilian helicopter.
    Recall that in October 2012, several criminal cases were opened on fraud in transactions with real estate, land and shares owned by Oboronservis. In this regard, several high-ranking officials, including the head of the department, Anatoly Serdyukov, lost their posts in the Ministry of Defense.

    The official site of the plant has not yet confirmed, but there is no smoke without fire.
  5. kugelblitz
    kugelblitz 18 June 2016 06: 38
    +10
    Maybe someone will answer me, why is the Su-25 enough for one pilot, but the Ka-50 is not? Maybe problems with target designation? But in general, the coaxial scheme in terms of protecting the transmission from damage is better along the way, there is no shaft on the tail rotor, and all units are crowded between the engines.

    And most importantly, the ejection system, albeit at the expense of booking the Ka-52, although the Ka-50 was initially better with this. Looking at these frames you involuntarily think.

    1. Verdun
      Verdun 18 June 2016 11: 36
      +6
      Quote: kugelblitz
      Maybe someone will answer me, why is the Su-25 enough for one pilot, but the Ka-50 is not?

      It’s just that many people still have the idea that the life of one pilot, albeit well trained, is cheaper than complex electronic systems.
      Su-25 grabs one pilot until the moment when he ceases to use directional weapons.
      The Su-25 does not have the electronic complex that was originally laid down in the Ka-50. I do not exclude that the electronic filling KA-50 developed in the early nineties does not reach today's requirements. But after more than 20 years have passed, and computers have stepped very far forward. It was possible to develop new systems. It remains only to assume that the people responsible for making decisions on the development of the industry either are not good friends with computers, having difficulty moving the mouse and pressing the keyboard with one finger, or act in their own interests unknown to the general public.
      1. U-krop
        U-krop 21 June 2016 12: 19
        0
        Quote: Verdun
        The Su-25 does not have the electronic complex that was originally laid down in the Ka-50.

        No.
        The Su-25T and Ka = -50 are equipped with the same "Shkval" and the same "Whirlwinds" as the main anti-tank weapon, and nothing.
    2. Aleksandr1959
      Aleksandr1959 18 June 2016 11: 57
      +6
      Maybe someone will answer me, why is the Su-25 enough for one pilot, but the Ka-50 is not?

      On the Su-25T was the same as on the Ka-50 PrNK "Shkval".
      One of the remarks of the List No. 1 of the GI Su-25T Act is written approximately like this (I don't remember the exact wording, more than twenty years have passed): "When performing some combat modes, the psychophysiological load on the pilot is close to the limit." The remark was given by specialists of the Research Institute of Aviation and Space Medicine of the Moscow Region. Those. the combination of the process of aiming and piloting in a number of modes caused problems. Moreover, it was not about combat pilots, but about first class military test pilots.
      By the way, the Su-25T, as well as the Su-25TM (Su-39) did not go into the series. Only a few cars were made.
      It is possible that a similar problem was encountered on the Ka-50.

      Therefore, they made such a decision. Plus, the muddy situation associated with the competition in which both the Ka-50 and Mi-28 participated. Plus the 90s, when the military-industrial complex was in deep ...
      The process of designing and adopting aviation equipment into service is quite a long time. Therefore, what seemed unacceptable, for example, at the beginning of aircraft testing, after a few years loses its relevance as technology develops.
    3. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 June 2016 14: 59
      +1
      Because it is enough for Ka-50. The problem is reconnaissance, there is no one to turn the head around, but this task was not initially set for the Su-25, and there are enough stubborn ones for helicopters that require searching for targets on their own.

      A counterargument, uniqueness in conditions of relatively small groups performing counterguerrilla actions doesn’t give anything much, but observers on board are needed.
    4. venik
      venik 19 June 2016 18: 52
      +3
      Quote: kugelblitz
      Maybe someone will answer me, why is the Su-25 enough for one pilot, but the Ka-50 is not?


      In order to understand you have to figure out some difference between an airplane (jet) and a helicopter. Ready?
      And so:
      - The helicopter has a much lower flight speed and ceiling. Therefore, I have to "sneak up" to the goal not just at low, but at SUPER LOW heights (up to 10-15 m). An attack aircraft (not only the Su-25, but also its analogs A-10, etc.) is simply not capable of this. For these machines, the "low level flight" is 150-200 m (where there is no longer any danger of collision with trees, buildings, power lines, etc., which means that the pilot has much more opportunities to concentrate on hitting the main target.

      - Helicopter piloting is much more difficult to control the aircraft, which significantly reduces the load on the pilot.

      - Due to the higher speed, the attack aircraft stays in the zone of destruction of anti-aircraft weapons (in the target area) for significantly less time. Those. there is an opportunity not to be distracted by their suppression.

      - The pilot of the turntable, unlike the pilot of the attack aircraft, is often forced to fly (and approach) to the target at heights by maneuvering between trees, buildings, power lines - i.e. he has practically no time to be distracted by "work" on the goal. In this case (which is very often encountered by the way), the navigator-operator takes on the main job of detecting a target hit.

      - Turntables, unlike attack aircraft, are capable of inflicting "surgically accurate" point strikes (ie when "friends" and "aliens" are literally 100-200 m apart). In this case, they have to go to the "pistol shot distance." In this case, the pilot "works" on the target, and the navigator-operator, with the help of a turret or ATGMs, "extinguishes" anti-aircraft points, or "processes" the places of their MOST LIKELY location. By the way, NONE of the modern systems is still IN CONDITION to reliably determine the most CONVENIENT positions of anti-aircraft crews !!! Experienced shooters make it EASY! This is how the crocodiles worked in Afghanistan (not only there). And it is for this reason that the army gave preference to the 2-seater "Aligator", and not the 1-seater "Shark" ... Although the technique is being improved and I think the hour is not far off when one pilot will be more than enough! It's just that "Shark" was a little ahead of its time!

      I hope I clearly understood?
      1. Arikkhab
        Arikkhab 26 June 2016 18: 33
        +1
        I have a stupid question here ... why did you decide that "Piloting a helicopter is much more difficult than flying an airplane"? it seemed like it always read the other way around ... and the rule was in the Air Force - you can retrain from an airplane to a helicopter, but from a helicopter to an airplane it is forbidden ... so the tales about Mimino (who moved from the Mi-2 to the Tu-144. ..) only happened in the movies ...
  6. demiurg
    demiurg 18 June 2016 07: 03
    +1
    Quote: kugelblitz
    Maybe someone will answer me, why is the Su-25 enough for one pilot, but the Ka-50 is not?

    Su-25 grabs one pilot until the moment when he ceases to use directional weapons. The pilot of the attack aircraft dodges shelling from the ground, looking for targets for attack with directional weapons. The same goes for the Ka-50. The presence of the operator allows you to remove a lot of work from the pilot. Even the presence of rockets fired and forgotten will not solve the problem. Both cars should ideally be in the firing zone of a second. And in these seconds you need to dodge the fire, seek out targets, decide on the order of their destruction.
    To launch a missile bomb strike on a previously known, static target, the pilot is enough, even if there are several targets. You can plan the path of their destruction in advance. But when you have to look for tanks / bmp over the battlefield that maneuver and snarl, the operator helps a lot.
    1. kugelblitz
      kugelblitz 18 June 2016 07: 08
      +2
      As I heard, for target designation it was planned to use the Ka-60 with a sub-muzzle radar and sighting system. With the current bell tower along the way, just for the Ka-50, and the Su-25, drones would become quite in place, with data broadcasting. However, a similar one from advanced ground groups would be no less useful.
      1. 25ru
        25ru 18 June 2016 07: 19
        +2
        Prior to the adoption of the AH-64D "Apache Longbow" with a nadvulochnuyu radar, and did overseas. The target designation was issued by the OH-58D / F "Kiowa Warrior".
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 June 2016 15: 01
      +1
      In fact, the helicopter pilot sees the targets on the course ahead of the operator, so unloading is a very contentious issue.
  7. 25ru
    25ru 18 June 2016 07: 23
    +1
    The tactics of using ligaments have been considered many times in the journal ZVO. EMNIP, one Kiowa was attached to the 4th Apache of the first releases. Scout jump, drummer jump, launch and departure. It seems so, from memory.
  8. Yak28
    Yak28 18 June 2016 08: 51
    +7
    Ka-50 is an excellent helicopter that is ahead of its time, there is a powerful gun, and coaxial rotors, and an emergency escape system for the helicopter pilot, and the presence of one pilot, and much more.
    They say the presence of one pilot in the Ka-50 is bad, and one person can’t cope because of the increased load on him, but this is all rubbish and lies. Thanks to modern electronics, one pilot will cope with all the tasks, but what’s the pilot there, today you can make a helicopter not piloted at all. The only trouble with the Ka-50 is that it appeared in a dying country sad , whose leadership in the 90s worked hard to reduce the state’s defense capability. In those years, many promising developments were unclaimed, for example, the Yak-141 aircraft and much more.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 June 2016 15: 21
      -3
      Thank God that at least we were delivered from the Yak-141. Otherwise, only resources from normal aircraft would be pulled back now.
      1. V.ic
        V.ic 18 June 2016 17: 44
        +2
        Quote: EvilLion
        Thank God that they delivered us even from the Yak-141.

        Yes, yes, glory to perestroika, Gorbachev, Yeltsin and people like you, spared the advanced machine by all standards. The Americans generally wrote in boiling water for joy.
        1. Winnie76
          Winnie76 19 June 2016 12: 04
          -1
          Quote: V.ic
          Thank God that they delivered us even from the Yak-141.
          Yes, yes, glory to perestroika, Gorbachev, Yeltsin and people like you, spared the advanced machine by all standards.

          But now the Americans have a worthy Yak-141 receiver, the F-35V is called. "An advanced machine by all measures" wink only very miserable. God be glorified ...
  9. Yak28
    Yak28 18 June 2016 09: 25
    +1
    Quote: Achilles
    I consider the Mi-28N unworthy to occupy the first place in the ranks of military vehicles

    It seems to me that the Mi-28s were stupidly preferred because of the armor, because there is nothing more interesting there, although the same Apache has practically no armor, (it’s somewhat like an armored cockpit), it perfectly gets off the DShK machine gun. Because of this, the tactics battle on it, try not to fly over the enemy, but to slaughter equipment and various objects from a distance of 6-7 or more kilometers. But on the Ka50-52 one catapult is worth it, because saving a pilot’s life is a big deal, I personally didn’t fly by helicopter in general, but I can imagine how long it takes to learn an ordinary person as a high-class helicopter pilot.
    1. Come on
      Come on 18 June 2016 10: 26
      +7
      Quote: Yak28
      although the same Apache practically has no armor, (there’s something like an armored cockpit)


      And from what hangover do you make such statements? :) The Apache is designed to withstand several hits of the 23mm zushka, not to mention the 12,7mm, which the cabin easily holds. There are already a bunch of published episodes of the use of Apaches from Iraq and Afghanistan in battles, not counting, of course, outright nonsense a la grandfather with a Berdan. Its bulletproof glass is thicker than that of the Mi-28, 4,5 cm for the Apache and 4-4,2 for the Mi-28. And about the tactics, you write strange things - "try not to fly over the enemy" .., and the Mi-28 try to fly over the enemy? The fact that "Crocodiles" and other combat helicopters of the Russian Federation are spinning next to the enemy is not because of a good life and special protection, but because of the lack of an analogue of the Hellfires. You have to use nourses and a cannon, for which you have to come close, and "Whirlwind", "Shturm" and "Attack" are purely cumulative ATGMs and their effectiveness against manpower and shelters is worthless. A catapult on the Ka-52 is good, but during the catapult in Moscow, not so long ago, a couple of years ago, many wondered - why the pilots could not eject?
      1. Yak28
        Yak28 18 June 2016 11: 57
        +1
        Only the cockpit is armored at Apache, the vital components of the helicopter are not protected, and thanks to electronics and modern missiles, it usually hammer the enemy from a great distance. And why the pilot didn’t eject, FIG knows how many cases there were when our and foreign military aircraft fell and pilots didn’t catapult, why? Maybe they wanted to save the equipment, maybe they didn’t get confused, or maybe the catapult didn’t work.
      2. EvilLion
        EvilLion 18 June 2016 15: 20
        0
        For the Mi-24, in fact, there were ATGMs back in Soviet times. Hellfire is also anti-tank and in difficult conditions, suddenly, "hydras" are used.
      3. Lt. Air Force stock
        Lt. Air Force stock 18 June 2016 19: 05
        0
        Quote: Yeah, well.
        Its bulletproof glass is thicker than Mi-28, 4,5cm for Apache and 4-4,2 for Mi-28.

        Apache generally has no armored glass.
        1. Come on
          Come on 18 June 2016 21: 05
          0
          Interestingly, I was interested in this question and I found such data and even in Wiki there is a thickness of 4,5 cm. Maybe it means windshield, from the frontal position glass, and lateral protruding hips overlap.
  10. Mountain shooter
    Mountain shooter 18 June 2016 09: 29
    +3
    I have always believed and still believe that Kamov combat helicopters are the best in the world. Now in Syria, they prove it. The coaxial scheme has, in addition to clear advantages, the prospect of increasing the speed of the machine. In the next modification with a pusher propeller.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 June 2016 15: 18
      +2
      She is unlikely to decide the output of the blades to supersonic.
  11. Argon
    Argon 18 June 2016 10: 21
    0
    Because the flight (and combat use, all the more so) of the Su-25 is provided by up to 25 people of ground services. These are dispatchers, navigators of combat control and planning, aircraft controllers. In other words, the aircraft is used in the conditions of the "information" field, and specifically the Su-25 in conditions of a friendly "information field." For a helicopter, this approach is not yet acceptable, it must operate autonomously, hence the need for a second crew member, in a rather large weight of armor (relative to the entire structure as a whole). The janissaries did not expect that the Kurds could have such a weapon. Therefore, the helicopter "worked" as in an area with an unorganized air defense system - without fuel elements from great heights without "clinging" to the tops. As for the Mi-28 and Ka-52, in my opinion Both machines are morally outdated and in the form in which they are now being supplied to the troops do not meet the requirements of the modern day. But objectively, in our organizational and structural conditions, the Mi-28 is more effective.
    1. Oleg_84
      Oleg_84 18 June 2016 13: 58
      -4
      What are the lack of Ka-52? climb? speed? carrying capacity? armor? maneuverability? What does he lack? Fancy electronics = fixable thing !!!
      Quote: Argon
      in my opinion both cars are outdated

      Send these words to the firebox or for good reason !!!
      Even with a Mosin rifle, you can go into battle !!!
    2. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 June 2016 15: 17
      -1
      You would be shot along with the generals for such words.
    3. V.ic
      V.ic 18 June 2016 17: 46
      +1
      Quote: Argon
      But objectively, in our organizational and structural conditions, the Mi-28 is more effective.

      Not "objectively" but subjective. fool
  12. Yak28
    Yak28 18 June 2016 12: 09
    +2
    It’s interesting when in 5-10 years in the USA they will create a helicopter with one pilot or not piloted at all, will they still say that one pilot can’t cope and you need two people? wink
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 June 2016 15: 16
      +1
      And AH-64E, it seems, can already well with one person. According to tradition, rather a passenger carries.
  13. Falcon5555
    Falcon5555 18 June 2016 13: 52
    0
    The problem of overlap of the blades of kamov is not mentioned. Heard - there were disasters. How about the vulnerability of the Kamov rack with a forest of rods and pipes, or whatever they call it. How about the price.
    1. EvilLion
      EvilLion 18 June 2016 15: 02
      +2
      The problem of screw blows on the tail boom due to which a bunch of turntables die every year is not mentioned.
      1. The comment was deleted.
  14. EvilLion
    EvilLion 18 June 2016 15: 07
    +2
    Soon, quite inexplicable events began: even after effective combat practice in Chechnya, when the Ka-50 fully proved its effectiveness and ammunition, it was decided to use the army’s main attack helicopter to make it a long-time competitor, the Mi-28 Night Hunter. And today it is he who is still preferred, although the appearance of a two-seat modification of the Ka-50 - the Ka-52 Alligator attack helicopter - still allowed the Russian army not to lose a unique car.


    In the 2005 year, there was already nowhere to physically produce the Ka-50, the Mi-28 crawled out simply because it still had the possibility of production, thanks to the Mi-8 and civilian orders. Now, from the point of view of contracted machines, the situation is reversed, just Ka-52 is crawling forward.
  15. andrewkor
    andrewkor 18 June 2016 15: 09
    +3
    He struck from the first lines: "Apache" is the first anti-tank helicopter !!! But what about "Cobra, which appeared 20 years earlier?
    1. Yak28
      Yak28 18 June 2016 15: 36
      0
      The first flight of the AN-1G "Hugh Cobra" took place already in September 1965, and was adopted in 1967. And the Apache flew only 10 years later, and was adopted in general in 1984. Even the Mi-28 with its narrow the cabin looks more like the Cobra than the Apache with which they like to compare it.
  16. HELIX
    HELIX 18 June 2016 16: 10
    +1
    Good article - thanks
  17. Backfire
    Backfire 18 June 2016 16: 50
    0
    Quote: EvilLion
    Soon, quite inexplicable events began: even after effective combat practice in Chechnya, when the Ka-50 fully proved its effectiveness and ammunition, it was decided to use the army’s main attack helicopter to make it a long-time competitor, the Mi-28 Night Hunter. And today it is he who is still preferred, although the appearance of a two-seat modification of the Ka-50 - the Ka-52 Alligator attack helicopter - still allowed the Russian army not to lose a unique car.


    In the 2005 year, there was already nowhere to physically produce the Ka-50, the Mi-28 crawled out simply because it still had the possibility of production, thanks to the Mi-8 and civilian orders. Now, from the point of view of contracted machines, the situation is reversed, just Ka-52 is crawling forward.
    1. Aleksandr1959
      Aleksandr1959 18 June 2016 19: 47
      0
      The competition for the creation of a new attack helicopter was held several times. Back in Soviet times, the competition was won by the K-50. Then the Milevtsians challenged the results of the complex ..... Etc. The decision was made to produce the K-50 in limited batches, as a more expensive helicopter compared to the Mi-28. In general, the muddy 90s, very well braked these cars.
      By the way, in favor of the K-50, it says that in the 90s it was decided to purchase two vehicles for the FSO, although they were not purchased for the aircraft.
      The article is normal, but the story of this "confrontation" is not fully told, the "characters and performers" are not indicated.
  18. Faust
    Faust 19 June 2016 00: 55
    +2
    Quote: Verdun
    The Su-25 does not have the electronic complex that was originally laid down in the Ka-50. I do not exclude that the electronic filling KA-50 developed in the early nineties does not reach today's requirements. But after more than 20 years have passed, and computers have stepped very far forward. It was possible to develop new systems. It remains only to assume that the people responsible for making decisions on the development of the industry either are not good friends with computers, having difficulty moving the mouse and pressing the keyboard with one finger, or act in their own interests unknown to the general public.


    The Ka-50 initially took the MIG-29 cockpit as the basis. Almost everything is taken from here. And they offered not only a helicopter, but also a new concept of warfare. Ka-50 banged synchronously with the MIG. From here came the Ka-52. If the shark concept takes root, then most likely it will be reborn with 35 MIG. And for sure it will be called Ka-55.
  19. Dimitrii
    Dimitrii 19 June 2016 04: 59
    0
    Of course, the ka-50 is a very interesting helicopter, but the crew is one person and even the whole process is as automated as possible, it causes slight embarrassment
  20. Buffet
    Buffet 19 June 2016 17: 19
    0
    Few people know, but the original work of Ka-50 was called WRITING.
  21. Wolka
    Wolka 22 June 2016 12: 45
    +3
    my preference is still for the Ka-50 and for the Ka-52, these would be more of the fledgling ones, the "aircraft-helicopter" fuselage scheme proved its superiority over the classic flying bedside table in the form of a "crocodile", about the stealth Ka-47 that was not yet born to remember I think not worth it ...
  22. Samoyed
    Samoyed 22 July 2016 10: 13
    0
    In the opinion of the amateur. The principal advantage of the spacecraft is not mentioned. The highest speed for propeller aircraft is Tu-95, in which coaxial screws rotate in different directions. I do not know the theory, but this allows us to increase the efficiency of such an engine, to increase speed. Therefore, the SC rotation scheme can increase the speed of rotation of the screws, respectively reducing their diameter, without losing the efficiency of the screw drive. Well, and the smaller diameter of the screws is a complex of advantages, starting from vulnerability ... P.S. It is interesting, why the saber-shaped blades do not?