Military Forum for Russian and Global Defence Issues


    Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Share
    avatar
    bhramos

    Posts : 14
    Points : 18
    Join date : 2009-09-07

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  bhramos on Mon Apr 03, 2017 8:54 am

    Unique Russian helicopter can hit target from eight kilometers!!!


    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  Cyrus the great on Thu Apr 06, 2017 1:51 pm


    I know the Ka-52 had a mast-mounted CM radar at some point, but would it be able to accomodate a larger mast-mounted radar weighing in access of 50 kg?
    avatar
    Rmf

    Posts : 492
    Points : 479
    Join date : 2013-05-30

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  Rmf on Thu Apr 06, 2017 7:13 pm

    you can put much better , wider and with less vibration radar in the nose of the helicopter.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  Cyrus the great on Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:50 pm

    Rmf wrote:you can put much better , wider and with less vibration radar in the nose of the helicopter.


    The nose mounted configuration is undoubtedly superior but I do wish Kamov did not have to remove the mast-mounted CM radar -- a radar that provided the Ka-52 with a 360 degree scanning ability in the air-to-air mode. I'm not sure but I think that KRET's Vitebsk EW will allow the Ka-52 to detect MANPADS at a 360 degree angle. What the CM radar brings to the table is the ability to detect aircraft at 360 degrees, but I suppose detecting aircraft is not all that important for an attack helicopter because it cannot even begin to neutralise the threat.


    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  Cyrus the great on Wed Apr 12, 2017 1:25 am


    The ka-52 has the highest out of ground effect hovering ceiling at 4000m, but I can't find the in ground hovering ceiling anywhere on the net.

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  Cyrus the great on Fri Apr 14, 2017 12:15 pm

    Ka-52 IGE: 5,500 meters

    Ka-52 OGE: 4,000 meters  

    Compared to AH-64

    IGE: 4,845 meters

    OGE: 3,866


    How effective would an advanced IRST be on the Ka-52 as a supplementary means of surveillance and detection?  The PIRATE IRST can apparently track 200 aerial (subsonic) targets from 150 km from rear. I wonder how many ground targets it could track. Will the OLS-50 have comparable to superior performance?
    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Apr 14, 2017 10:50 pm

    Cyrus the great wrote:Ka-52 IGE: 5,500 meters

    Ka-52 OGE: 4,000 meters  

    Compared to AH-64

    IGE: 4,845 meters

    OGE: 3,866


    How effective would an advanced IRST be on the Ka-52 as a supplementary means of surveillance and detection?  The PIRATE IRST can apparently track 200 aerial (subsonic) targets from 150 km from rear. I wonder how many ground targets it could track. Will the OLS-50 have comparable to superior performance?

    The numbers for HIGE and HOGE are wrong for both.

    IRST was used on the first prototype of KA-52 since they lacked back than the Radar in operation. How well an IRST would do against ground targets is debatable based on the surface and much richer visual distracting environement it had to scan through unlike the clear sky.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16196
    Points : 16827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  GarryB on Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:06 am

    If PIRATE can manage that sort of performance then why bother with a radar...

    This would be 150 heat points above the horizon within its field of view and it would not have ranges for those targets...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    Isos

    Posts : 743
    Points : 745
    Join date : 2015-11-06

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  Isos on Sat Apr 15, 2017 11:35 am

    GarryB wrote:If PIRATE can manage that sort of performance then why bother with a radar...

    This would be 150 heat points above the horizon within its field of view and it would not have ranges for those targets...

    Few days ago, I've red in a pro typhoon article that their PIRATE had lot of issues finding target in the first versions. Most of the time it was false target because of the bad signal processing. The article is a comparison between rafale and typhoon.

    English are lacking behind France and USA too, their technology is not on pair with russians. Su-30MKI exercices proved it. The evaluation of Swiss air force put the Typhoon far behind the Rafale, much closer to the grippen than to the rafale. Actually, french news said that they no more confront the Typhoon against the rafale because they always loose.

    Like in every aspects of their life they associats with the USA and try to be bigger than they really are (eco, diplomaticaly, military, technologicaly...).

    I would any day chose a Su-35, Rafale or Pak Fa than a Typhoon...
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16196
    Points : 16827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  GarryB on Sun Apr 16, 2017 5:42 am

    What I was trying to say is that an IRST system is not the same as the thermal night vision equipment a helicopter carries.

    An IRST just detects warm things like aircraft engines or the friction heated rotor blades of a hovering helo. The pilot wont know if it is the exhaust of an F-16s engine or a flare launched to defeat an incoming IR missile... or an IR missile whose nose is heated by the friction of flying at mach 2.

    An IRST just locates the heat source... and for a fighter that is good enough because everything emitting heat above the horizon (ie in the air) is of interest... whether it is a short lived IR flare... which tells you an enemy fighter is somewhere nearby, or an incoming missile, these are things the fighter pilot would like to know about... an IR target would get him to turn his head to look at the threat... if it is close he can see what it is and if it is a long way away a quick scan with his radar will give him more information about it. Passing the information on to the local AWACS aircraft will get him even more info.

    For a helo pilot operating at low altitudes however, an IRST is not good enough... 150 hot points on the ground could be 130 sun heated rocks that are warmer than the dirt around them.

    An IRST just detects points of heat it does not create an image the pilot can look at and decide it is a tank or a tanks engine running or for that matter a small fire on the battlefield.

    The thermal sights on a helo need to be imaging sights to be useful.

    Newer Russian IRSTs include a TV and thermal channel for imaging targets so you can detect a warm or hot object and then look to see what it is. You can also turn the radar in the direction of the target to get information about its distance and speed vector without having to do a full scan of the area.

    The advantage of IR systems is angular accuracy, the main problem is lack of ranging accuracy and therefore also lack of an ability to determine whether the target is moving or not.

    A single radar pulse is changed if the object it hits is moving towards or away from the radar so distance and speed can be determined in one pulse... the problem is that without location information to begin with you need a broad scan of the air space to find it in the first place.

    An IRST offers the chance to locate the target passively so getting more info is easier and less active. A small ranging pulse could be missed in the EM soup that is a combat area.

    For an attack helo pilot finding targets using IR is more beneficial and being able to identify them based on the image created is much more useful than just having an IRST... but an IRST system can find points of interest over a large field of view rapidly so the thermal imager can then be zoomed onto the IR sources for identification without having to scan for hours at high resolution to find targets.

    CM radar has the enormous advantage of range but is only useful for air targets and air threats. MMW radar is useful for ground targets at much shorter ranges.

    A MMW only radar will lack range. A CM radar only will only be useful for air targets. Both are more useful than either one on its own.

    They are talking about a radar and a thermal system for the UAV carried by Armata tanks... using a tether these will be very very interesting and probably useful for helos and ground attack aircraft too for collecting target data in real time.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  Cyrus the great on Tue Apr 18, 2017 11:03 am

    Werewolf wrote:
    Cyrus the great wrote:Ka-52 IGE: 5,500 meters

    Ka-52 OGE: 4,000 meters  

    Compared to AH-64

    IGE: 4,845 meters

    OGE: 3,866


    How effective would an advanced IRST be on the Ka-52 as a supplementary means of surveillance and detection?  The PIRATE IRST can apparently track 200 aerial (subsonic) targets from 150 km from rear. I wonder how many ground targets it could track. Will the OLS-50 have comparable to superior performance?

    The numbers for HIGE and HOGE are wrong for both.

    IRST was used on the first prototype of KA-52 since they lacked back than the Radar in operation. How well an IRST would do against ground targets is debatable based on the surface and much richer visual distracting environement it had to scan through unlike the clear sky.


    I watched an advertisement for the Ka-52 and it did mention that the HOGE of the Ka-52 was 4, 000 m and I found the HIGE on the fas website. Do you have the real numbers for the Ka-52? If an IRST radar cannot perform well in ground operations then I can see why the current set-up is ideal. Vibration issues have prevented the incorporation of the CM radar in the mast, but it does seem that advances in that field will soon remove this obstacle. The new Ka-52 K has an AESA radar - arguably making it the most powerful helicopter around, and so I wonder if Kamov will ever do the same thing for the Ka-52 Alligator. I understand that a MMW radar is better at ground mapping but other manufacturers have solved this problem by creating an AESA radar with complementary SAR and GMTI radars geared specifically for ground mapping and ISR support.


    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  Cyrus the great on Tue Apr 18, 2017 12:20 pm

    GarryB wrote:What I was trying to say is that an IRST system is not the same as the thermal night vision equipment a helicopter carries.

    An IRST just detects warm things like aircraft engines or the friction heated rotor blades of a hovering helo. The pilot wont know if it is the exhaust of an F-16s engine or a flare launched to defeat an incoming IR missile... or an IR missile whose nose is heated by the friction of flying at mach 2.

    An IRST just locates the heat source... and for a fighter that is good enough because everything emitting heat above the horizon (ie in the air) is of interest... whether it is a short lived IR flare... which tells you an enemy fighter is somewhere nearby, or an incoming missile, these are things the fighter pilot would like to know about... an IR target would get him to turn his head to look at the threat... if it is close he can see what it is and if it is a long way away a quick scan with his radar will give him more information about it.  Passing the information on to the local AWACS aircraft will get him even more info.

    For a helo pilot operating at low altitudes however, an IRST is not good enough... 150 hot points on the ground could be 130 sun heated rocks that are warmer than the dirt around them.

    An IRST just detects points of heat it does not create an image the pilot can look at and decide it is a tank or a tanks engine running or for that matter a small fire on the battlefield.

    The thermal sights on a helo need to be imaging sights to be useful.

    Newer Russian IRSTs include a TV and thermal channel for imaging targets so you can detect a warm or hot object and then look to see what it is. You can also turn the radar in the direction of the target to get information about its distance and speed vector without having to do a full scan of the area.

    The advantage of IR systems is angular accuracy, the main problem is lack of ranging accuracy and therefore also lack of an ability to determine whether the target is moving or not.

    A single radar pulse is changed if the object it hits is moving towards or away from the radar so distance and speed can be determined in one pulse... the problem is that without location information to begin with you need a broad scan of the air space to find it in the first place.

    An IRST offers the chance to locate the target passively so getting more info is easier and less active. A small ranging pulse could be missed in the EM soup that is a combat area.

    For an attack helo pilot finding targets using IR is more beneficial and being able to identify them based on the image created is much more useful than just having an IRST... but an IRST system can find points of interest over a large field of view rapidly so the thermal imager can then be zoomed onto the IR sources for identification without having to scan for hours at high resolution to find targets.

    CM radar has the enormous advantage of range but is only useful for air targets and air threats. MMW radar is useful for ground targets at much shorter ranges.

    A MMW only radar will lack range. A CM radar only will only be useful for air targets. Both are more useful than either one on its own.

    They are talking about a radar and a thermal system for the UAV carried by Armata tanks... using a tether these will be very very interesting and probably useful for helos and ground attack aircraft too for collecting target data in real time.

    It would seem that an IRST radar could perform the required tasks when tied with a thermal imager but it also seems that it would distract the crew; the established means of detection, tracking and targeting seem to be far more reliable and benefit from automatic modes of operation. An IRST radar  requiring corroboration from a thermal imager would likely prolong the process of target identification and subsequent neutralisation. How significant is the CM advantage on a MMW radar in terms of range for air over-watch mode? Russia seems to have resolved that they will operate both the Ka-52 and the Mi-28NM - with the Ka-52 serving as a scout helicopter and the Mi-28NM serving as an attack helicopter. Let's suppose that a foreign customer was impressed with the Ka-52 but specified that it required a variant with a conventional two seater stepped tandem cockpit configuration... would this be possible if Kamov used carbon fiber in lieu of steel to reduce the overall empty weight to 7, 000 kg? Composites comprise 35% of the platform, so this could be increased to create a tandem two seater variant.




    The one seat of the Ka-50 could be doubled in a stepped configuration but with a nose mounted radar like the Ka-52. Could the TV7-117V turboshaft engine be used for the Ka-52? The new engine provides the Mi-38 with a maximum altitude of 8, 600 m and a range of 885 km.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16196
    Points : 16827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  GarryB on Wed Apr 19, 2017 12:41 pm

    It would seem that an IRST radar could perform the required tasks when tied with a thermal imager but it also seems that it would distract the crew;

    It would compliment a thermal sight.

    An Apache pilot once described using the optical night vision system on the Apache as trying to fly a Helo by looking through a straw.

    Using a thermal night vision system to find targets is difficult too... if you have low zoom then you can cover a larger area quicker but you might miss targets because of lack of zoom. If you zoom in you will take hours just to scan your field of view. Having an IRST means all the hotspots are detected rapidly and you can then use the target locking system to jump from target to target with the thermal imager zoomed in to identify what the target is... is it a Shilka or is it a rock.

    If it is a threat then mark it as a priority target. If it is a target mark it as such. Such information can be used to decide what to attack and passed to HQ for other units to be aware of enemy positions on the battlefield.

    You might detect an enemy formation worth attacking directly or you might detect an air defence formation or an anti armour formation that your forces will need to know about.

    An IRST radar requiring corroboration from a thermal imager would likely prolong the process of target identification and subsequent neutralisation.

    As mentioned above it would actually speed things up as it removes the need for the gunner to slowly scan areas at high zoom with the thermal imager.

    How significant is the CM advantage on a MMW radar in terms of range for air over-watch mode?

    MMW radar is limited regarding tank sized targets to about 12km or so... perhaps 16-20km for a bridge or large building or ship.

    CM wave radar can detect aircraft at 100km or more depending on power and radar apature.

    Let's suppose that a foreign customer was impressed with the Ka-52 but specified that it required a variant with a conventional two seater stepped tandem cockpit configuration... would this be possible if Kamov used carbon fiber in lieu of steel to reduce the overall empty weight to 7, 000 kg? Composites comprise 35% of the platform, so this could be increased to create a tandem two seater variant.

    The customer could have anything they wanted... as long as they paid for it.

    The erdogan was an interesting design and could still be built... personally I would adopt the same retractable cannon arrangement, but swap the cannon for a twin barrel 23mm weapon firing the mild 23 x 115mm rounds.

    Nice heavy projectile, small compact round with low recoil. Rate of fire is a bit high, but overall a good round for a helo to use against ground targets.

    To be honest there is nothing wrong with the side by side seating of the Ka-52... it offers good communication between the crew members.

    With modern helmet mounted displays offering virtual cockpit views for night and all weather flight the potential for a single seater becomes more interesting.

    Needless to say with twin night vision optics from the nose of the aircraft fed in real time to the pilots NVGs means he would get the view as if his head was on the nose of the aircraft with a perfect view of the ground and the air around the front of the aircraft... he could see through his cockpit displays for night flight... He could operate the weapons like a fighter pilot and a single seat attack helo becomes an option again...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    Cyrus the great

    Posts : 269
    Points : 279
    Join date : 2015-06-12

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  Cyrus the great on Fri Apr 21, 2017 1:09 pm


    Thanks for that information packed post, Garry.

    My only real problem with the Ka-52's side by side configuration, is the fact that the glass on the sides is not adequately protected. The arrangement significantly enhances communication and cooperation between the crew and is superior in that regards but it really should be able to sustain hits from small arms on the sides.
    avatar
    George1

    Posts : 10094
    Points : 10582
    Join date : 2011-12-22
    Location : Greece

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  George1 on Thu May 25, 2017 1:07 am

    "The Russian Space Systems is developing a new guidance system for artillery armament of the strike-reconnaissance combat Ka-52 'Alligator' helicopter in the framework of cooperation with the Russian Helicopters company. When creating a measurement system for the helicopter's artillery complex,… specialists used the groundwork of the rocket and space technology," the company's press service said.

    https://sputniknews.com/military/201705241053939144-russia-ka-52-alligator-space-system/


    _________________
    "There's no smoke without fire.", Georgy Zhukov

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16196
    Points : 16827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  GarryB on Fri May 26, 2017 9:26 am

    My only real problem with the Ka-52's side by side configuration, is the fact that the glass on the sides is not adequately protected.

    The main difference between tandem and side by side is that SBS has less area needing armour... if you think about two crew one in front of the other you double the side glass needed and also run the risk of both looking out the same side at the same time instead of one covering one side and front and the other covering the other side and the front.

    In terms of weight if you consider a front and side armour box around each crew man if you put one in front of the other you save the rear area of one box. If you put them side by side you take off two of the largest areas of armour. You run the risk of a penetration injuring both crew, but it reduces the weight which can be applied to heavier external protection reducing the chance of a penetration in the first place.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order

    ult

    Posts : 643
    Points : 683
    Join date : 2015-02-20

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  ult on Sun May 28, 2017 8:07 am

    Great Ka-52 and Vikhr-1 combat footage with the crew's comms.

    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16196
    Points : 16827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  GarryB on Mon May 29, 2017 6:49 am

    Great Ka-52 and Vikhr-1 combat footage with the crew's comms.

    Vikhr has no big solid rocket booster like Hermes will so its average speed can be used to give a rough estimate of distance... the Vikhr moves at about 610m/s so about one km per second is a good rule of thumb to work out the range these shots were taken at.


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    galicije83

    Posts : 39
    Points : 41
    Join date : 2015-04-30
    Age : 37
    Location : Novi Sad, Serbia

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  galicije83 on Mon May 29, 2017 5:22 pm

    all missiles was fired from distance of 8km. u can see in left down corner distance and ПР command on piltot HUD (ПР or PR is command given by computer when is missile in target range. For Vikhr is 8.0km)...

    ult

    Posts : 643
    Points : 683
    Join date : 2015-02-20

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  ult on Tue May 30, 2017 1:24 pm

    No. Not all. There were 5km shots.

    ult

    Posts : 643
    Points : 683
    Join date : 2015-02-20

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  ult on Tue May 30, 2017 8:29 pm

    You can see the distances here.

    avatar
    Werewolf

    Posts : 5361
    Points : 5598
    Join date : 2012-10-24

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  Werewolf on Fri Jun 02, 2017 11:56 pm

    ult wrote:You can see the distances here.


    I would say it is Ataka not Vikhr ATGM. 20 sec for 8km and 13 sec for 5.5km does not sound like Vikhr.
    avatar
    GarryB

    Posts : 16196
    Points : 16827
    Join date : 2010-03-30
    Location : New Zealand

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  GarryB on Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:21 am

    21 seconds to 8km is 380m/s average, 11 seconds to 5km is 454m/s average.

    It does sound like ATAKA at an average of 400m/s, but Ataka can't hit targets at 8km range...


    _________________
    “The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion […] but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do.”

    ― Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order
    avatar
    franco

    Posts : 2315
    Points : 2353
    Join date : 2010-08-18

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  franco on Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:22 am

    14 Ka-52's to be delivered this year. Not sure if the 50 left on the contract is the present total or what will be left for delivery in 2018-2020. The contract reportedly was for 146 helicopters.

    https://ria.ru/defense_safety/20170603/1495732127.html
    avatar
    medo

    Posts : 3171
    Points : 3261
    Join date : 2010-10-24
    Location : Slovenia

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  medo on Sat Jun 03, 2017 1:07 pm

    GarryB wrote:21 seconds to 8km is 380m/s average, 11 seconds to 5km is 454m/s average.

    It does sound like ATAKA at an average of 400m/s, but Ataka can't hit targets at 8km range...

    Ataka 9M120M have range of 8 km, so maybe Ka-52 use Ataka at its max range thanks to precise radar, which could calculate precize distance of launching to the target to use missile effectively at max distance.

    Sponsored content

    Re: Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

    Post  Sponsored content


      Current date/time is Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:11 pm