Ka-50 "Hokum" vs. Mi-28 "Havoc"

I find Russia's advanced attack helicopter program very interesting. For one thing, the Soviet Union/Russia never had a TRUE attack helicopter. The Mi-24 "Hind-D" was a combination transport and gunship, not something you can use to destroy everything. So whatever helicopter is at-bat next will actually be their first true attack chopper.

That said, what's better, the Hokum or the Havoc?

Give me the complete load, costs, everything!

Ka-50 Hokum Specifications

Primary Function: Anti-armor helicopter

Contractor: Kamov

Crew: One (Two in Ka-52)

Unit Cost: N/A

Powerplant
Two Klimov TV3-117VK turboshaft rated at 2,226 shp (1660kW) each

Dimensions
Fuselage Length: 44 ft, 3.5 in (13.5 m) -- excluding gun and probe
Rotor Diameter: 45 ft, 6.9 in (14.5 m)
Height: 17 ft, 8.6 in (5.4 m)

Weights
Empty: 7,692 kg
Maximum Takeoff: 16,534 lb (7,500 kg)

Performance
Speed: 188kt (350km/h / 217 mph)
Ceiling: 13,125 ft (4000m)
Combat Radius: 135nm (250km / 155 mi)

Armament
One 2A42 30-mm cannon; up to 16 AT-9 Vikhr anti-armor missiles; AS-12 'Kegler' guided missiles; 80 S-8 80mm rockets;AAM and ARMs



Mi-28 Havoc Specifications

Primary Function: Attack helicopter

Contractor: Mil

Crew: Two - pilot (rear) and a navigator/weapons operator (front)

Unit Cost: N/A

Powerplant
Two 2070shp (1545kW) Klimov TV3-117VM turboshafts driving a five blade main rotor and four blade tail rotor

Dimensions
Fuselage Length: 55 ft, 9 in (17.01 m)
Rotor Diameter: 56 ft, 5 in (17.2 m)
Height: 12 ft, 7 in (3.82 m)

Weights
Empty: 17,845lb (8095kg) -- equipped
Maximum Takeoff: 25,705lb (11,660kg)

Performance
Speed: 162kt (300km/h / 184.8 mph)
Ceiling: 19,020ft
Range: 595nm (1100km) -- (w/ reserves)

Armament
One 30 mm NPPU-28 cannon
SA-16 Gimlet AAMs
AT-6 Spiral AT missiles
130 mm or 80 mm rockets



The Mi-28N and Kamov Ka-50 are competing to fulfil the Russian Army Aviation requirement for a night-capable anti-tank helicopter, a replacement to the Mi-24 created 25 years ago. The Mi-28N is based on the Mi-28A, a daylight helicopter first flown in December 1982. In comparison with the AH-64D Longbow Apache, the 10,5-ton Mi-28N is some 2.5 tons heavier, partly due to its more powerful cannon. In general the two helicopters have similar flight performance. Two Klimov TV-3-117 engines of 2,200 hp each allow the Russian aircraft to show a maximum level speed of 300 km/h and maximum climb at sea-level of 13.6 meters per second.


www.globalaircraft.org...




www.globalaircraft.org...

[Edited on 12-11-2003 by Russian]

So what's the superior system, taking all that into account? You know this stuff better than anyone.

What makes the Ka-50 or the Mi-28 so unique? What makes one superior to the other?

Let me pose a scenario to you. Say that you are commander of Russian Army Aviation and you ahve to choose one or the other. Which and why?

And which will they really choose? Or will they use both (unbeatable combo).

If I had to pick between these two helicopters I would take the Mi-28 because it has a further range. It also has a higher ceiling. Even though Mi-28 has a lower top speed, it has better protection so that could make up for the slower speed. Also Mi-28 has a better maximum takeoff.(11,660kg vs. 7,500kg) Another reason I would take the Mi-28 is that is better equipped, also it could be used in more purposes then the Ka-50. Ka-50 is mostly a anti-tank helicopter while Mi-28 can destroy tanks and do other stuff such as attack enemy postions. Mi-28 has two rates of shooting - 800 and 300 shells one minute. On four points of the suspension the containers with bazookas, guns of calibre of 23 mm, and also bomb of calibre up to 500 kgs and other ammunition can fasten. The helicopter is equipped with the adaptation for statement a min. Search, recognition of the purpose and induction of the weapon are carried out with the help of of combined optical-aim station. The important dignity Mi-28 it high battle survival. On this parameter about a Nim any helicopter of the world can not compete. It is the unique helicopter have completely armoured pilot cabin, armoured glas of a cabin the direct hit of bullets of calibre up to 12,7 mm, and also splinters of shells maintains. On Mi-28 shielding the vital elements less vital is widely applied.

The reasons above is why I would take a Mi-28 inseadt of the Ka-50. But Ka-50 is also useful in battle in which there is alot of armor that is needed to be destroyed.

Originally posted by Russian
If I had to pick between these two helicopters I would take the Mi-28 because it has a further range. It also has a higher ceiling. Even though Mi-28 has a lower top speed, it has better protection so that could make up for the slower speed. Also Mi-28 has a better maximum takeoff.(11,660kg vs. 7,500kg) Another reason I would take the Mi-28 is that is better equipped, also it could be used in more purposes then the Ka-50. Ka-50 is mostly a anti-tank helicopter while Mi-28 can destroy tanks and do other stuff such as attack enemy postions. Mi-28 has two rates of shooting - 800 and 300 shells one minute. On four points of the suspension the containers with bazookas, guns of calibre of 23 mm, and also bomb of calibre up to 500 kgs and other ammunition can fasten. The helicopter is equipped with the adaptation for statement a min. Search, recognition of the purpose and induction of the weapon are carried out with the help of of combined optical-aim station. The important dignity Mi-28 it high battle survival. On this parameter about a Nim any helicopter of the world can not compete. It is the unique helicopter have completely armoured pilot cabin, armoured glas of a cabin the direct hit of bullets of calibre up to 12,7 mm, and also splinters of shells maintains. On Mi-28 shielding the vital elements less vital is widely applied.

The reasons above is why I would take a Mi-28 inseadt of the Ka-50. But Ka-50 is also useful in battle in which there is alot of armor that is needed to be destroyed.

Very interesting. Now, do you see these two helicopters working together, or will Russia have to pick just one? And which have they chosen?

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
I find Russia's advanced attack helicopter program very interesting. For one thing, the Soviet Union/Russia never had a TRUE attack helicopter. The Mi-24 "Hind-D" was a combination transport and gunship, not something you can use to destroy everything. So whatever helicopter is at-bat next will actually be their first true attack chopper.

That said, what's better, the Hokum or the Havoc?

Give me the complete load, costs, everything!

Today's attack helicopters evolved from the Huey Cobra, mainly as a way to counter Warsaw Pact's staggering tank superiority. A handful of F-117s plus the rest of the Air Force would not stop several thousand T-72s from steaming into Paris, as such the A-10 and AH-64 were designed. They're tank killers and close support aircraft, pure and simple. The advantage of the attack chopper is that it's rugged, (or should be) can loiter for support, can take advantage of cover and wipe out equal to or more its value in terms of tanks. Battlefield proximity and response times are a plus, especially when your airbases have all been nuked.

The Hinds worked fine in Afghanistan; the Soviets never really needed a dedicated Apache-style attack chopper - infantry transport and fire support were effectively combined into one unit. As for the antitank role, the Mi-24 is well sufficient, heavily armed and armoured - although it did evolve as a complement to armoured warfare.

In my opinion, the Ka-50 Hokum / Werewolf / Black Shark is the better choice. It looks uglier and nastier than the Mi-28 and its contra-rotating rotors give it the aerobatic edge. One of the Commanche designs was to have used a similar contra-rotation feature, but the boring old main and tail rotor combination is what we got.

[Edited on 13-11-2003 by Lampyridae]

Ka-50 and Mi-28 can work together because they don't do the same job. Ka-50 can take the armor out and Mi-28 can take on anybody else. In some places though Ka-50 and Mi-28 can't work together because Mi-28 can go on far missions while Ka-50 just stays close to the base for protection.

But if Russia does have to pick from the two, it would be the Mi-28 because it has close to what Ka-50 has plus more other combat material. Russia though doesn't have to pick from the two because they have different missions.

Also a good comparesent(spelling) to the Mi-28 is an Apache AH-64. Apache AH-64 is the main Mi-28 opponent. But the Mi-28 outperformce the Apache in many ways. First of all Mi-28 has better weapons and therefore it is better armed.

Hmmmm... I'm not too sure of that - I mean, the AH-64's a proven, battle-tested system and it accounted for something like 500 armour kills in Gulf War I. Are its avionics and sensors as good as the AH-64?

Originally posted by Lampyridae
Today's attack helicopters evolved from the Huey Cobra, mainly as a way to counter Warsaw Pact's staggering tank superiority. A handful of F-117s plus the rest of the Air Force would not stop several thousand T-72s from steaming into Paris, as such the A-10 and AH-64 were designed. They're tank killers and close support aircraft, pure and simple. The advantage of the attack chopper is that it's rugged, (or should be) can loiter for support, can take advantage of cover and wipe out equal to or more its value in terms of tanks. Battlefield proximity and response times are a plus, especially when your airbases have all been nuked.

The Hinds worked fine in Afghanistan; the Soviets never really needed a dedicated Apache-style attack chopper - infantry transport and fire support were effectively combined into one unit. As for the antitank role, the Mi-24 is well sufficient, heavily armed and armoured - although it did evolve as a complement to armoured warfare.

In my opinion, the Ka-50 Hokum / Werewolf / Black Shark is the better choice. It looks uglier and nastier than the Mi-28 and its contra-rotating rotors give it the aerobatic edge. One of the Commanche designs was to have used a similar contra-rotation feature, but the boring old main and tail rotor combination is what we got.

[Edited on 13-11-2003 by Lampyridae]

You know, that's a very good point. U.S. combat helicopters were designed specifically for big-time warfare against very capable and deadly ground forces. That is an example of just how good our choppers are.

I also agree with you on the Hind. I think it is an amazing machine and just packs such devestating firepower. But yes, it was effective in Afghanistan, but it was an advantage that didn't last forever. While the Hind is not a true attack helicopter (more like a gunship), the fact remains, it is a pig. Thus it was highly vulnerable to the Mujahadeen's Stinger missiles while immune to everything else.

I also think the Ka-50 is a fearsome machine.

On a side note, even if we fought the Soviet Union in Central Europe with the AH-1F, AH-64A, AH-64D, and RAH-66, we would've still lost the entire war. And that's a scary thought.

-The RAH-66 was cancelled in I believe 2006 ... before a full working prototype was competed. This was 15 years after the Soviet Union collapsed. The AH-64D was first delivered in 1997 ... 6 years after the collapse.

-The Mi-24 did not start to have problems with Mujaheddin later in the Afghan war. The trouble was at the start and was fairly quickly dealt with. The issue was not its design. The Mi-24 outpaces all US Army helicopters and is, while heavy, quite agile at high speed making it a tough target unless you get the jump on it. HOWEVER ... it had 2 fatal flaws at its introduction to combat in 1979.
Its engine exhausts were directly beneath the rotors meaning the missile would do awesome damage to the helicopter, often causing it to simply disintegrate (no mean feat with a Hind).
The second was that it was introduced with NO counter-measures or warning systems. Meaning the only way they'd survive being fired upon was if they saw the missile coming with their eyes and given their field of view that is pretty unlikely.
After its upgrades both at the start of the Afghan War and later on it became an excellent helicopter. Sure, it has trouble hovering so isn't so good at popping up from behind hills but in the assault role there is basically nothing better.

-With that said your points about the Ka-50 and Mi-28 made 2 big mistakes. The Ka-50 is designed with air to air in mind as well as anti tank. While not the complete payload whore the Mi-28 is ... its probably the worlds best at its specialised roles thanks partly to its excellent agility, speed and equipment.
You also pointed out repeatedly that the Mi-28 would fill the vital role of assault helicopter after its dealt with the tanks. Something you pointed out the Ka-50 is not as good at thanks to its lighter armour and payload. But honestly ... the Russian's already have over 1,000 heavily armoured, fast, well armed assault helicopters so thats a fairly moot point.

-As for the question about sensor equipment. There is a bit of back and forth with that. Obviously the USA were ahead with the Cobra and even later with with AH-64 having no obvious competitors.
But when the Mi-24's got their counter-measures & warning systems they got the jump on Western designs for a few years.
Then along came the Western attempt at the same stuff ... putting them ahead again.
In comes the Mi-28 to take the title once more only to be quickly snuffed out before it enters serious production by the AH-64D and comparable aircraft like the Eurocopter Tiger.
Then, with a mere $150 million USD the Soviets counter this with the Mi-28N, still before sending it en masse to the factories.
And the USA has again recently begun (I believe) a new block upgrade on the AH-64D's putting them in the lead for the world ... new abilities like controlling UAV's will probably cement them as a world leader for helicopters for a while.

HOWEVER that is only if you're looking at the air to ground role.

In the Air to Air role, the Russians are well ahead of the competition with their smart little R-73 package which can be fitted to nearly any helicopter for a few hundred thousand and is standard equipment for the Ka-50 or Mi-28. Hell ... they would probably beat an F-16A more often then not with that missile ... let alone a fellow attack helo.

Well, you realy cannot compare those two helicopters since they are used for different roles.

the Mi-28 is used for strategic frontwide destruction off enemy armour and other stuff the Mi-24/25/35 does.

The KA-50 is more a tactical localised peice off terror.

Both should be used is my final verdict.

I find it interesting that the coaxial design has the lower lifting capacity and wonder if given a more equal design that it would be more effective.

For years, the US navy used coaxial anti-sub drones to carry torpedos mainly due to the fact that all of the power is being used for lift all of the time and yaw is controlled by simply varying the ratio of power to the upper or lower blades. The coaxial design is also more inherantly stable in a hover. Yet we do not see sky cranes using coaxial rotors either, so maybe there is a reason?

I am sure there are also disadvantages that I am not considering here and clearly these choppers being compared are vastly different in their designs which, no doubt, contributes to their inequality in performance.

Based on the figures, though, the Mi-28 seems like the better choice here.

Havent there been some issues with the KA-50 that when it turn to tight in a bendt turn, the rotors have a chance to collide?


Think they lost 2 choppers like this in a exercise last year.

Yes, what you said is true but according to recent video this problem has been resolved.

Definitely the Hokum is better. IMHO it's technologically most advanced chopper in the world. It has everything: double contra-rotating rotors (which results in putting more power in thrust), powerful computers (at least for Russia) and many more. The only minus is it's cost, which is why Russian army chose Hokum for it's special ops chopper and Havoc for main army gunship.

Greets

Originally posted by Lampyridae


Today's attack helicopters evolved from the Huey Cobra, mainly as a way to counter Warsaw Pact's staggering tank superiority.

Good reply I agree with just about everything except this statement

The Cobra was developed during the Vietnam war for jungle fighting and was not thought of as a tank killer until much later the

A-10 " Warthog" was built for that action.


good topic

all imj gonna say the mi-28 is the better chioce but thge a-10 can rip up both the two helos plus its very agile

You guys are considering point which I dont think are the most important. We talking about helicopters. Helicopters are just platforms to carry AT Weapons. That said, the two most important features are both the Weapon itself and its system including Sensors, Computers and Guiding System.

Ceiling doesn't really matters cause you will be flying as low as possible almost crawling away from radar. Speed is limited by how fast you can fly avoiding radar. At night during bad visibility you will fly even slower. Acrobatics come into play if you're attacked, but that's not the role of the attack helicopter.

Weapons:
KA-50 Black Shark

Main AT Missile is the 9K121 Vikhr, the last Russian AT missile.
It is a laser guided, very fast missile. Virtually unjammable. It can be launched in salvos of 2 for deadlier results. But as every semi-guided weapon, it required that platform light the target until impact, exposing the helicopter for threat.

Then you the cannon which is "fixed" to the fuselage. That means that you have to steer the helicopter in order to aim. If those two rotors indeed increase its agility than its an advantage cause the gun being fixed means also it will be more accurate, reliable and would have obviously a better range.

And Rockets.

Sensors and systems: As far as I know, the main Black Shark version does not have FLIR, but a low light TV system. No radar as well. The pilot can carry a night vision goggle for navigation. It is said that the K-52 Alligator is the Black Shark's coordinator.


Mil Mi-28N which is the version being produced is a night-time all weather helicopter.
Main AT missiles are Ataka and Shturm. Both radio guided SACLOS. The Ataka is short range while the Shturm is 8km capable. The pilot needs steer the helo with the sights pointed to the target until impact. Rumors say that its somewhat unreliable against even slow moving targets.

Sensors: The Mi-28N has FLIR and Rotor mount Radar giving it the ability to operate in all weather, day and night.


Conclusion. In my opinion for a day support, the Black Shark is a killing machine. Even more deadly if you use it in mountain terrain where its agility counts even more.
But if you need to operate at night, the Havoc is the only choice despite its poor weapons.

Originally posted by Anonymous ATS
all imj gonna say the mi-28 is the better chioce but thge a-10 can rip up both the two helos plus its very agile

Dear anon,

Why this useless response?

Are you an immature American person who doesnt like Russian weapons need to come up with this unnecesary type off response?

Aside the immaturity, the mentioning off the A-10 has nothing to do with these two helo's.

[useless immaturity]teh su25 can blow op teh apache and cobra lols[/useless immaturity]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aside from the above, my number one choice would be the MI-28 iff the NM project would encompass installing K-36 seats and FF missiles and many other upgrades.

i would choose the mi-28

its way cheaper and i could by several for the cost of 1 ka-50