Ka-52 in Russian Air Force

Well they will need to sort this out because the Russian Navy will be ordering the Ka-52 soon for their new Mistrals too and they will probably need at least 50 (including about 8 per vessel plus some land based aircraft for training etc).

https://2img.net/r/ihimizer/img818/4050/1774037.jpg

Here is a recent photo of the Ka-52 from the wonderful airliners.net website that I wanted to have a chat about.
While the Ka-52 and Mi-28N are being worked on and put into service they have had some changes, the more so with the Ka-52 specifically with regard to weapons.
In the picture above it is quite clear that this helo is carrying Shturm/Ataka missiles from the Hind/Havoc series, though on the Hind and the Havoc there are circular black fronted radio command pods to control those missiles in flight which doesn't seem to be present on this model Hokum.
The main changed features are the wingtips which now have wings poking out of the wingtip pods at an upward 45 degree angle with pods on the end and the left main pod tip is flattened as if it contains some sort of aerial.
Also on the far left weapon pylon there is a large box structure which hints to me perhaps a purpose for the new antenna.
I am guessing that the flattened let pod contains the antenna to control the ATAKA and SHTURM ATGMs and because only one would be needed I believe the black wings with tip pods on both wing tip pods are antenna for controlling the ZALA 421 08 UAVs in the box on the far left weapon pylon box.

If you look at this website: http://www.zala.aero./ down in the bottom left corner you can watch a flash video of how a Ka-50 uses this UAV to scout ahead. Considering the Ka-52 is called a "Scout" helicopter I would think in addition of having two crew would mean it was even better suited to the use of this UAV.

I would add that if this assumption is correct that would answer a question I have had for some time because the BMPT carries ATAKA missiles but does not have the black circular antenna to control them as fitted to the Hind (under the nose offset from the optical window) or the Havoc (which gives it a thimble nose look). This new flat antenna that is able to control ATAKA in flight would be much easier to position on BMPT though if it has one I would still be interested in finding where it is.

Yes, I thought it was quite clever myself.

From the animation each container seems to have the capacity to carry about 8 UAVs.

If you check out this page: http://zala.aero/en/1280152087/

You can see a link on the far right for the helo launched UAVs but also other links for ship launched systems and even networks of UAVs controlled via satellite.
Interesting and rather innovative.

The nose radome is for the MMW radar for detecting and tracking ground targets.

The mast mounted radar is a cm wave radar and it is a 360 degree radar to detect air traffic and incoming missiles.

AFAIK they ordered 12 for the scout role. In this sense they replace one role the Mi-2 performed.

That all seems to be good news.

Regarding the armour the Kamov design bureau took the decision to make the Ka-52 a side by side seater for reasons of reducing armour weight. In having them tandem the Mi-28 has two crew positions with armour on sides, front and rear and beneath and only the armour between the two positions is saved.
To explain it clearer... if you take two crew positions and separate them completely they both need the same level of armour all around.
If you put those two crew positions together like in a tandem configuration then the front of the pilots position is attached to the rear of the gunners position so you can remove... say the front armour of the pilots position except for the front windscreen... which still needs to be armoured. This reduces weight but the rear armour of the gunners position will prevent a round that enters the gunners position also hitting the pilot.
On the Ka-52 they realised that if they made it tandem they would only be able to remove the lower front armour of one position. By putting both armoured capsules together side by side you get to remove the entire side armour from both capsules which is an enormous reduction in armour weight. The problem is of course that a penetrating round could take out both crew at once. An advantage is better communication and cooperation with the flight crew.
In a tandem layout both crew get a nice clear front and side view but because they can't see each other clearly they could be both looking in the same direction and therefore miss something important.
Side by side seating like like in a Rally car with a driver and an assistant... you can get the other guys attention by tapping them on the shoulder and pointing at what you want them to look at. Most of the time you have your own viewing arcs to scan and these arcs don't overlap too much so you wont be wasting your time looking where the other guy is looking.
Lots of pluses and minuses.

Anyway, very glad to hear Arbalet is working now.

The comment about the Ka-52 being forced to use Ataka is a temporary thing because Hermes is replacing Ataka too... for the Ka-52 and the Mi-28N. When both have fully working ait to ground radars then Hermes will be needed to take advantage of their new long distance detection capabilities.

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: