Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

With R-73 AA missiles, Ka-52 could engage flying targets up to 30 km away, but I wonder if Arbalet radar could enable using medium range AA missiles like R-77.

I rather doubt a Ka-52 would be engaging targets at 30km with R-73s.
Fired from 15,000m from a Mig-29 doing mach 1.6 or so it might manage to hit a closing target that was 30km away when the missile was launched, but at low altitude from a low speed the range of an R-73 is probably closer to 15km. More importantly it would probably only get a lock on the target at 10km or so.
The real advantage over say an Igla is that an F-16 flying low and fast in minimum AB on a strike mission at high subsonic speed if you detect it at 8km heading away from you you could launch an R-73 and it would probably hit the target at 15-16km. With only Igla you wouldn't bother.
Remember those small AESA radar antennas called Epaulette or something that could be fitted to aircraft with radars that could track aircraft but weren't updated to control R-77s. You could fit those and use R-77s, but they would be 20-30km range missiles from that height and speed.

Regarding the Kh-25ML, that would be a useful weapon if the target is something large like a factory or perhaps a solid bridge. The Kh-25ML is a Maverick class weapon and its heavy warhead would be most useful in some situations. In the anti radiation models like Kh-25MP and the Kh-25MPU it would be useful for dealing with all sorts of threats. It would be even cooler if they invested the money and developed the Kh-25TM and Kh-25MTP which were TV and IIR(thermal imaging) guided models with fire and forget capability.

Those missiles give Ka-52 capabilities, which Mi-28 or AH-64 doesn't have. It could do different missions and is more like fighter-bomber, like Su-24/34, than attacker like Su-25 or in helicopters Mi-28.

I think the Ah-64 can use sidewinders and mavericks. It can also use the anti radiation version of the sidewinder too I believe.

I do agree that the Ka-52 has some impressive capabilities, but western assumptions that the original Ka-50 was an anti helicopter helicopter have led some to think such a thing might be possible.

The reality is that the Ka-52 is not some airwolf fighter helo, it is a very heavy armed scout aircraft that will spend most of its time directing Su-25s to targets, or other flights of helos to attack targets it detects.
It is armed but in many cases rather than sending a slow fragile Ka-52 to take out a bridge it is more likely they will send an Su-34 with a 1,500kg guided bomb.

Regarding fighting helos and other aircraft, the simple addition of a small rotor mounted radar and short range AAMs does not make it a fighter. In fact the most important features in fighter combat are height and speed, neither of which helicopters are well known for.

Suffice to say you can put all the Sidewinders you want on an AH-64D Apache but even an early model Mig-29 can detect and track such a target at long range and engage it at long range with R-27R missiles well outside the range of a sidewinder fired from a helo. Even an R-73 fired from a Mig-29 at mach 1 from 5,000m will have 2-3 times the range and energy of one fired by a helo so it can fire and circle around in a wide arc and check for impacts and then fire again and again until the target is down or it has run out of missiles and then it can leave.
A helo will not get an option to leave if an enemy fighter is nearby.

Nice photo link Austin.

I especially liked the one showing the cockpit of the Ka-52:



This has a much better angle than my previous photo.


I always get a kick out of seeing the red ejection seat handles in front of the seats between the crews legs. Not something you often see on a helicopter.

Thanks for posting psg.

The first thing I noticed was the squiggly lines on the canopies, which clearly shows they are now intending for the crew to eject through the canopies rather than ejecting the canopies first.
The squiggly lines are detonation cord used to shatter the canopy for the ejection seats to eject up though the canopy rather than having a delay while the entire canopy is opened and jettisoned and has time to get clear before the ejection seats fire.
This means ejections will be faster which will make them safer... so that is good news.

The next thing I notice is the small bumps under the wings just in from the wing tip pods... I don't remember seeing them before.

And lastly the under nose optics pod... now I know they have tried lots of variations of where to put EO balls and that often the aircraft would be shown with several positions at once making some of the positions actually redundant, but I would think that the bare minimum number of EO balls is two.

Let me explain.



On the Mi-28N if you start from the thimble black antenna that looks like a nose (and is a radio transmitter for the Shturm and Ataka series ATGMs) going down there is a ball like sensor with lots of optical windows and then a big flat drum with two large square optical windows in it. The top ball is for the pilot to give him a stabilised view of outside the aircraft and includes day and night cameras. The night cameras are important because they contain thermal imaging cameras which give excellent views at night and even during the day are not effected by conventional camouflage. Thermal imagers can't see through glass so the pilot can't wear thermal night vision goggles otherwise he wouldn't be able to see outside the canopy.
By having a helmet mounted sight however the outside view can be projected directly into his line of sight so he can see through his cockpit displays an unobstructed view of the outside as if his head was where the ball turret is. The helmet mounted sight will have information projected into it like height and speed and perhaps even mini versions of his MFDs repeated in his field of view and he will probably be able to dim the outside view so he can concentrate on the instruments inside the aircraft... or perhaps turn the IR view off in one eye to check his instruments but most of the time at night he will want this outside view for flying. The big flat drum with the two optical windows is for the gunner and will have thermal channels and digital TV channels for long range viewing of potential targets and also aiming the gun.
The point is that they need to be separate because the pilot will be looking all round the helo to make sure he doesn't fly into anything... especially at night but also during the day, while the gunner will want to look for and at targets and possibly watch them for a period to see what they are doing so having separate independent optics is vital... a bit like in a tank where the commander has a panoramic sight that can look in 360 degrees while the gunners sight might only move 30 degrees left and right and pretty much slaved to where the turret is facing because the gunner will be told what to shoot at and when while the commander needs to not only look for more targets but also for threats to his tank and where the driver should drive to next (as the driver is so low in the hull he will take driving cues from the commander who has a much better view of the terrain than he has.)
Anyway... what I mean is why does the Ka-52 only have one EO turret?
It must clearly be for testing that particular turret with perhaps a roof mounted pilot turret to be added?
To be honest I think the gunners ball should go on the roof of the aircraft and the pilots ball should go in the centre underneath as this will mean less of the helo needs be exposed to give the gunner a view of the terrain in front of the helo while allowing the pilot to see clearly how far the helo is from the ground.

Note on that photo above (that psg posted with the EO turret showing its optical ports) with the turret optic ports exposed it looks to me like the top two openings are twin cameras for the pilots view. Of the remaining four ports the tiny one is probably the laser rangefinder/target marker/and for laser beam riding missiles, and the larger port next to it is likely the laser mark detector and gionometer for detecting the flares in the tails of missiles so the system can plot their position in relation to the cross-hairs (target) to generate flight manoeuvres to get the missile back on target so to speak. The remaining two ports will be a digital TV with a high zoom for identifying targets at long range and a thermal camera for night and all weather observation.
These functions would be OK in a single seat helo like a Ka-50 but sharing between two crew might cause problems.

Now look above at the photo of the Mi-28Ns pilots EO ball and you will see the two windows widely spaced are for the stereo view for the pilot and there are three more windows... one for a laser beam, and one for a receiver window to track missiles and the last one will be a digital TV port to zoom in to targets a long way away. The pilot s twin ports for his eyes will be the thermal imaging port that he can use day or night with depth perception to fly the aircraft. When scanning long range for targets he doesn't need depth perception so it only has one port but for flying day or night he needs two that are spaced apart like his eyes and for the same reasons.

Regarding the strange things on the wings just inside where the wing tip pods are located... perhaps this photo of the cockpit offers a solution:

Note the weapon management screen to the far left shows three wing pylons under each wing plus the cannon as a circle with a link to show ammo load.
Early example of what the helmet mounted displays will look like:

You can't see psgs photos?

I didn't have any in my post... though I will add some now to make it clearer.

unless the idea is to make the ka-52 a command helicopter/special ops
helicopter where they would add a MMW SEEKER above the rotor and one of
the guy will just track/designate the target and will pass it on to
Mi-28 or Ka-50.

The Russian MMW radar set for their attack helos has two components on the Hokum. The mast mounted antenna is the 360 degree air search radar in CM wavelength, while the MMW radar for ground targets is in the nose and has a field of view of something like 70-90 degrees forward.
I assume they will put another ball on there somewhere for the pilot.

GarryB the bumps which you refer to, just before the wing tip pods must
be the pylon attachment point? they will most likely carry air to air
missiles? i remember reading in a article that the pylons where stressed
to carry upward of 454kg each, is that still the same or have they been
strengthened more? what will be the loading for the outboard pylons?
will the manta dircm system be fitted?

454kg is a very strange figure... I would think they would stress it to take 500kg ordinance at least.
A loaded 122mm S-13 5 shot rocket pod weighs 510kgs.
Regarding the outer wing pylon I am thinking either this bump is where a pack of MANPADS AAMs are fitted (two or perhaps four pack) or the wingtip ESM pod is removed to fit the twin MANPADS AAMs.

The turret positions are present for Manta so the aircraft shown is fitted for, but not with DIRCM at the moment.

I think Ka-52 doesn't need additional EO ball for pilot, because Ka-52,
comparing to Mi-28, have a very big MMW radar in its nose, which for
sure have terrain following mode and resolution of MMW radar is more
than enough to show pilot all obstacles on radar screen.

That is what I thought initially... but the field of view of the nose radar is only about 70-90 degrees which would make flying at night almost impossible... remember you need to see sideways to see branches and trees and stuff too.

Perhaps they will expect the pilot to use night vision goggles as used in most helos at night... I have heard that the newest model is very good.

BTW the Mi-28N has two radar antenna in its mast... a 360 degree CM wave radar for scanning for air targets and a 70-90 degree forward view antenna in MMW radar for scanning for ground targets. That is why the Mi-28Ns antenna is so big while the antenna for the Ka-52 above the rotors is so small... it is because the Ka-52 mast mounted radar antenna is a CM wave radar and its MMW radar is in its nose.
With the change to Krisantema the Mi-28M might have a completely reprofiled nose with the ground search radar relocated in the nose like the Hokum, but I think it is better to keep the MMW radar antenna in the mast mount as the rest of the helo can remain behind cover.
Night vision goggles for the pilot means he should be able to see things close to the aircraft and out to a reasonable distance to fly the aircraft while the gunner can use the radar to scan for targets and then use Flir and digital TV to zoom in and try to identify them optically. The radar will have a library of known target types and will be able to distinguish a tracked vehicle with a turret from a wheeled vehicle with or without a turret but whether it can determine exactly what target it has found is unlikely.

sorry GarryB my bad, i should of said upward of 580kg, she can carry fab
500 bombs and your right about s-13 loaded weight being more than
500kg,

No worries I wonder how much those big boxes for UAVs weigh, and those drop tanks don't look light either.
Also in the role of attack helo as the Ka-52 has been marketed so far the range of weapons it would need to carry is fairly limited... rocket pods and gun pods and ATGMs and bombs and KGMU submunition dispensors and mine dispensors etc etc, but now that they are buying the Mistral helicopter carriers I wonder what other weapons they might add to its armoury... Kh-31, Kh-35, Kh-38??? these might be too heavy.

quick question what is the progress of the guided 80mm and 122mm rockets from ugroza?

Have not heard anything... but very excited about the whole idea and concept. The thought of a Ka-52 with a 30mm cannon with 500 shells, plus 8-12 long range ATGM (HERMES/VIKHR) and 40 guided HE equipped rockets just makes this aircraft sound so cool. The Mi-28N with 300 rounds of 30mm ammo, plus 16 Krisantema or 8 HERMES, and 40 guided HE warhead equipped rockets is just as exciting.
Just the flexibility... a 20 shot pod filled with guided HEAT equipped rockets for engaging APCs, plus 16 ATGMs for heavy armour, and 20 shot pod filled with unguided HE FRAG rockets for area targets like troops caught in the open plus a 30mm cannon with 300 rounds. The ATGMs will reach 8km targets and have 1250mm penetration capability, the guided rockets will be effective out to about 5-6km because they are guided and will penetrate 440mm which should be effective against light armoured vehicles.
I guess it is just a question of getting aircraft able to guide the rockets into service and making sure they are cheap enough to use in large numbers.
The advert I have seen for them suggests they can be used against tanks (an Abrams in fact), pillboxes and fixed ground targets, and aircraft (an Apache in this case), and it allows for the rocket to be fired ballistically at 40-50 degrees to get maximum ballistic range so the launching helo can stand off from the target and remain safer.
The Ugroza kits for the big S-25 and S-24 rockets can allow for engaging targets at up to 10kms. Note the S-24 doesn't seem to be in service anymore and was a single 240mm HE warhead armed rocket with a payload of 125kgs which would ruin the day for most targets. The S-25 is a single shot rocket pod that has RPG-7 like rockets in the sense that the rocket sticks out the tip of the launcher and the rocket body is narrow with a large warhead sticking out the front. (40mm for the RPG-7 and 266mm for the S-25 rockets) The two warhead options for the S-25 so far are a HE warhead of 420mm calibre weighing 151kgs and a 340mm calibre Fragmentation warhead weighing 150kgs... the main difference is that the HE warhead has thin walls and lots of HE, whereas the Frag warhead has a smaller bursting charge of HE and thick steel fragmentation walls, so the former kills and destroys with blast and the latter with fragments to kill better protected targets.

i think extra EO ball for pilot will be useful, extra pair of eyes when looking for targets.

That raises another point... in the side by side seating arrangement communication is greatly improved, but at the cost of limitations on outside view with the person sitting on the left having reduced visibility to the right and vice versa.
Strangely it means both crew will more likely be searching different areas which prevents both crew looking in the same places while ignoring other areas, and I think the improved crew communication is well worth it too.
I guess we should wait for the final in service production model... they have shown versions with a periscope type mount.

I have also heard that the setup with a stereoscopic view projected into a helmet mounted display can actually make you feel sick because the brain has problems accepting the view it is receiving either because of the short delay in the turret following fast head movements or the spacial difference between the view the pilot sees through the HMS from the nose of the aircraft and the real world he can also see. Some 3D computer games make me feel sick when I play them so I can understand the potential problem... but an unobstructed nose of the aircraft all weather day/night view would be awesome... ripping along at 250km/h at low level in terrain following autopilot a few metres above the ground!!!

I dont think that the case , the radar antenna on this mast is a MMW
radar and they do not scan for air targets as Mi-28N is not a dedicated
AWACS

First of all you have to be careful because there are two Arbalet radar systems, both are designed for helicopters, but one is for attack helos like the Ka-52 and indeed the Ka-50 and the Mi-28N/M, and the other is for the Ka-32 naval helo in a chin position for spotting people in the water, aerial targets, ships etc.

The radar for the Attack helos has two components... a 360 degree air search CM wave radar that can spot an incoming stinger missile at 5-6km, and a ground searching MMW radar for scanning ground targets that can spot large things like bridges up to 25km and tanks at 10km or so. MMW radar is relatively short range and is actually effected by bad weather, but not as badly effected as optical frequencies. CM wave radar is used for air surveillance because it has much longer effective range.
In the Mi-28N the thimble nose is for a separate radio transmitter used to guide ATAKA and Shturm ATGMs and although it operates at about 35 GHz it is not a MMW radar. The MMW radar and the CM wave radar in the Mi-28N is located in the large ball above the main rotor.
On the Ka-52 the MMW radar is mounted in the nose and the CM wave radar is mounted in the very small flat ball above the main rotors.

[qutoe]Its really hard to say just by looking at the antenna of Mi-28N and
Ka-52 to say which is better , unless you have the specs of both to
compare.[/quote]

I was under the impression are both getting the same system... they are just positioning the antennas in different places.

The Mi-28N was supposed to get a radar from NIIP ( http://www.niip.info/ ) but they had lots of problems with it and as far as I know they cancelled it and were adopting the radar for the Hokum.
With the M model they are also dropping the large flat drum with the TOR EO system for the gunner too and might get something like that fitted to the new Ka-52s or perhaps something else.
I suspect the MMW radar component on the Hokum would be too large to go into the ball of the Mi-28N as a complete unit so I suspect the ball will just contain the antennas and that the electronic boxes will take up the internal space with all the avionics where extra crew can be carried in emergencies.
Another alternative would be to fit the radar into the revised nose of the Mi-28M and use those aircraft as the radar equipped versions...

Of course they might have solved the problems with the NIIP radar and are still intending to use it, but it doesn't seem to be mentioned on their website: http://www.niip.info/

Thank you for pictures of radar for Ka-52 helicopter. Although it have
mechanical antenna it could still be very capable. Considering the size
of Ka-52 nose, I expect a radar with larger antenna. Maybe radar for
serial helicopters have some differences comparing to prototype, but
expecting radar with any kind of ESA antenna, like a derivate of V004
radar from Su-34, would be too optimistic and too expensive.

Actually NIIP are a sub company of Almaz-Antei so they should have lots of experience with PESA antennas. Even the apuelet (spelling) radar could be a basis for a new design for helos perhaps?

Interesting is a statement for air-to air missile control for Arbalet
radar. IR guided missiles don't need any radar control, what could give
an idea, that this radar could work with medium range AA missiles with
SARH (R-27) or ARH (R-77). Anyway, combining radar and EO system, Ka-52
is very capable machine against air and ground targets.

The main problem for air to air missiles is altitude and speed. An R-73 would be a 10-15km ranged missile launched from a helo and even the long range R-27ET would have very limited flight performance launched at low level at low speed from a helo... maybe 30km... for a weight of 350kgs. Of course it would come as a heck of a shock for the average fighter expecting an easy kill suddenly finding a missile closing in on them when they thought they were safe.
The R-27T and R-27ET would be an enormous advantage against another helo and a very nasty surprise against a fighter.