StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Another versus thread,well i tried to make a poll but the freaking system did`nt work,so i will make it an ordinary thread.

An AH-64 Apache gunship vs a KA-50 wich one will emerge victorious?

I added the poll with no problems

'Pache, 'Pache, uber alles....

The Apache, if not for better fire control.
Without missiles, let's say they're under a rain storm and out of heat seekers, the transversible turret of the Apache is more flexible for off-axis shoots, the limited transverse of the Aligator is crap, even if it posesses better yaw rate.
(I've faced Aligators in Enemy Engaged, and they always ended up in smoke, when I wasn't being trashed by some Triple-A.)

The KA-50 wins, as it has AAMs.

The Ka-50 is better for shooting up infantry and soft targets. Its lack of a tail rotor, heavy armor and the higher caliber rockets and gun pods are all better for the job. However, while its missiles have better range and speed, their guidance system and the single crewmember limits them. And its not possibul to fit a mast sight or radar. If it's a D model Apaches there's no contest for anti armor.

Really it depends what you want to do. A nation like Malaysia which faces a minimal armor threat but lots of mountainous terrain and infantry and light mech forces would likely be better served by Ka-50's. While South Korea, looking at several thousand tanks, APC's and other vehicle targets is going to prefer Apaches.

Howedar wrote:The KA-50 wins, as it has AAMs.

Apache is cleared for Stingers and Sidewinder, and the Longbow Hellfire works against aircraft. It also is much better off with two crewmembers and a turreted gun.

@ Sea Skimmer

How much would another crewman (KA-52?) even the odds?

Can I answer that???

Not much, one extra pair of eyes, one less distraction for the pilot, since a dedicated WSO aleviates pilot workload, the problem is they're side-by-side, the pilot has a more restricted view of the outside world, and (vital) information exchange between pilot and WSO can be lost during a dogfight, specially between two helicopters maneuvering at tree-top level.
The technical restrictions still apply, although Ka-52 crews have fire control radars and weapon cueing systems, but if both crews are on the same experience level, the fight will quickly develop from long range into knife range, and the Apache's turret can be a deciding factor.

a hokum flies in whith it´s two main rotors and smashes everything with it´s design.

hokum über alles, über alles hoooookum!

(no i have no clue which copter is better, but the hokum wins against the apache, at least in a beauty competition)

Oberleutnant wrote:@ Sea Skimmer

How much would another crewman (KA-52?) even the odds?

It helps, slightly perhaps. Visibility leaves something to be desired, and tandem seating sucks for everything smaller then a heavy bomber. The Ka-52 was designed to be a trainer, combat only came up when the short comings of a single seat design become apparent and the Russians realized that most nations didn't want attack helicopters that required ground based forward observers.

Like Sea Skimmer said, the craft are built for different things, the Mi-28 "Apachski" is more of the equivalent to the AH-64D in Russian tech.

Sea Skimmer wrote:and the Longbow Hellfire works against aircraft.

Fascinating. I didn't know that.

*wades into thread*

The Ka-50 is called the Black Shark.
The Ka-52 is called the Alligator, folks.

Pound for pound, the Black Shark is more heavily armed- 12 Vikhr-M ATGMs and 40 S-8 80mm rockets as standard. I'd also bet that the 2A42 cannon of the Black Shark is more powerful and accurate than the Apaches- in terms of the former because it is longer and is fitted on the BMP-2, and the latter because it is mounted closer to the aircraft's centre of gravity. The Apache's 30mm cannon also has a tendency to jam.

In terms of fire control, the Ka-50N is no slouch, it has a turreted FLIR intergrated with the Shkval sighting system- this thing is *accurate*- at it's maxium range you can pick whcih roadwheel on a tank you want to hit with your Vikhr. It also has a helmet mounted sight and a 'glass' cockpit.

Any production Ka-50 would be one equipped with a FLIR- there have been two prototypes so far, one with Shkval repositioned in the nose and FLIR under the chin, and another with Shkval removed and replaced by a new set. This latter one, however, doesn't look as scary.

Sea Skimmer wrote: And its not possibul to fit a mast sight or radar. If it's a D model Apaches there's no contest for anti armor.

Actually, the Ka-50N prototype was fitted with an Arbalet (Crossbow) radar for a time, but it was decided that this would fit best on the Ka-52 Alligator, so it was removed. It comes standard on the Alligator.

Really it depends what you want to do. A nation like Malaysia which faces a minimal armor threat but lots of mountainous terrain and infantry and light mech forces would likely be better served by Ka-50's. While South Korea, looking at several thousand tanks, APC's and other vehicle targets is going to prefer Apaches.

Agree.

Like Sea Skimmer said, the craft are built for different things, the Mi-28 "Apachski" is more of the equivalent to the AH-64D in Russian tech.

The Mi-28N HAVOC-B is surely the equivalent of the Apache in both design and capability- though the Ka-52 Alligator is also a capability equivalent, though it's design is unorthodox. Ka-50 does have heavier armor, though.

The big advantage Apache has are it's Longbow fire-and-forget Hellfires, IMO- for now

and the Longbow Hellfire works against aircraft.

Vikhr does as well, IIRC.

The Ka-52 was designed to be a trainer, combat only came up when the short comings of a single seat design become apparent and the Russians realized that most nations didn't want attack helicopters that required ground based forward observers.

If the Ka-50 is picked, then they would be produced on a 2:1 Ka-50N/Ka-52 ratio, with the Ka-52 acting as the 'command' chopper- in much the same way as the US Army uses it's Longbows in comparison to it's vanilla Apaches.

I hear though, that Kamov may redesign the Ka-52 to go for a tandem seating arrangement instead of side-by-side.

Visibility leaves something to be desired, and tandem seating sucks for everything smaller then a heavy bomber

Don't you mean side-by-side? Tandem means front/back type arrangement.

Warspite wrote:The Apache, if not for better fire control.
Without missiles, let's say they're under a rain storm and out of heat seekers, the transversible turret of the Apache is more flexible for off-axis shoots, the limited transverse of the Aligator is crap, even if it posesses better yaw rate.
(I've faced Aligators in Enemy Engaged, and they always ended up in smoke, when I wasn't being trashed by some Triple-A.)

EE is fun- but using it as evidence

Vympel wrote:
Actually, the Ka-50N prototype was fitted with an Arbalet (Crossbow) radar for a time, but it was decided that this would fit best on the Ka-52 Alligator, so it was removed. It comes standard on the Alligator.

However the radar is mounted lower and doesn't have 360 degree coverage.

Vikhr does as well, IIRC.

There is a variant designed for anti aircraft. However it is radio command guided. Active radar is going to be far superior.

As for cannon firepower, the Ka's weapon is more powerful, but both are more then capable of blasting each other and light armor. I'd take the much wider arc of fire.

Don't you mean side-by-side? Tandem means front/back type arrangement.

Yeah yeah. Brain forgot the word for side by side and inserted tandem.


So far however the Ka-50 isn't doing well on the export market, having been beaten by Apache and Cobra.

Vympel wrote:

Warspite wrote:The Apache, if not for better fire control.
Without missiles, let's say they're under a rain storm and out of heat seekers, the transversible turret of the Apache is more flexible for off-axis shoots, the limited transverse of the Aligator is crap, even if it posesses better yaw rate.
(I've faced Aligators in Enemy Engaged, and they always ended up in smoke, when I wasn't being trashed by some Triple-A.)

EE is fun- but using it as evidence

Good old enemy engaged, Stingers and Igals almost never hit, while you get 99% accuracy against aircraft with laser Hellfire's and Vikhr.

Marginally off-topic:

What is the actual Russian name of the Mi-24 Hind?

Back on-topic:
One of the two Russian choppers has horrible visibility-- a really boxy cnopy with reinforced crash supports but tiny windows compared to the 'Pache.... I think it was an export version called "Werwolf" or some such...(??)

Also, anyone have much information on how AH-1Z production is going?

phongn wrote:Also, anyone have much information on how AH-1Z production is going?

Low rate production for the USMC starts in 2004. The order with Turkey has been agreed on but the contract has not yet been signed.

Sea Skimmer wrote:
However the radar is mounted lower and doesn't have 360 degree coverage.

It's on the mast.

There is a variant designed for anti aircraft. However it is radio command guided. Active radar is going to be far superior.

Yes.

As for cannon firepower, the Ka's weapon is more powerful, but both are more then capable of blasting each other and light armor. I'd take the much wider arc of fire.

Meh I don't know. The HAVOC has the turret 2A42, but I hear it's not as accurate.

So far however the Ka-50 isn't doing well on the export market, having been beaten by Apache and Cobra.

Yeah, well in terms of Turkey there was never march chance of them getting their tandem seat Ka-50-2 Erdogan- politics really. Where did it lose out to Apache? I haven't heard of any competition where it's participated aside from the Turkey one.

The Mi-28A HAVOC though beat the AH-64 in the first stage of the Swedish tender thogh. Don't know what happened to the second stage, but the Mi-28N will compete in that one.

I can never decide between HAVOC and HOKUM.

Coyote wrote:Marginally off-topic:

What is the actual Russian name of the Mi-24 Hind?

The Russians call it Crocodile, or Grey Wolf.

Back on-topic:
One of the two Russian choppers has horrible visibility-- a really boxy cnopy with reinforced crash supports but tiny windows compared to the 'Pache.... I think it was an export version called "Werwolf" or some such...(??)

[/quote]

The Werewolf was the movie name for the Ka-50, in reality it's Black Shark. Both helicopters have good visibility- the Russians learned their lesson after their experience with the HIND-A.

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/ka50/ka505.html

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/mi28/mi286.html

Sea Skimmer wrote:

phongn wrote:Also, anyone have much information on how AH-1Z production is going?

Low rate production for the USMC starts in 2004. The order with Turkey has been agreed on but the contract has not yet been signed.

Will they Army be using it as well ?

Vympel wrote:
It's on the mast.

I thought the mounted it in front of the rotors on the roof? I've never seen nor heard of a radar or mast sight being fitted to coaxial rotor helo, I have however read that it was thought to be impossible.

Meh I don't know. The HAVOC has the turret 2A42, but I hear it's not as accurate.

I think thats because it moves with the pilots head, with a fixed gun you can have it lock onto one point.

Yeah, well in terms of Turkey there was never march chance of them getting their tandem seat Ka-50-2 Erdogan- politics really. Where did it lose out to Apache? I haven't heard of any competition where it's participated aside from the Turkey one.

The UAE I belive.

I can never decide between HAVOC and HOKUM.

I'd go Havoc. Its a decade older, but I dislike the seating of Hokum too much and until its enters wide spread service and Russia decides which versions its going to buy I wouldn't want it in any case. I'd just take the US Army's Cobra fleet off its hands.

Victory through shear weight of TOW...

Sea Skimmer wrote:
I thought the mounted it in front of the rotors on the roof? I've never seen nor heard of a radar or mast sight being fitted to coaxial rotor helo, I have however read that it was thought to be impossible.

In front of the rotors on the roof? That's the FLIR turret. The radar is right there on the mast. I've even seen pictures from MAKS 2001.

An older variant had it in the nose, though.



There's the Arbalet at the top.

I think thats because it moves with the pilots head, with a fixed gun you can have it lock onto one point.

It also had something to do with the position- apparently the HAVOC mount isn't as stable.

The UAE I belive.

Hmm, I must look that up.

I'd go Havoc. Its a decade older, but I dislike the seating of Hokum too much and until its enters wide spread service and Russia decides which versions its going to buy I wouldn't want it in any case. I'd just take the US Army's Cobra fleet off its hands.

Victory through shear weight of TOW...

Actually, they seem the same age- Mi-28N HAVOC-B made it's first flight in 1997- it's a generation ahead of the original. The Russian Army may prefer the HAVOC after all.

But fuck just hurry up and choose one!

Cobra? Bah! HIND-F!